Roth v. United States
- Decided
- June 24, 1957
- Docket
- 582
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,255 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled, overruled in part, overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · State v. Kraham
What later courts said
- holding that an obscenity test based on the application of contemporary community standards withstands the charge of constitutional infirmity — United States v. California Publishers Liquidating Corp. (1991)
- holding that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press” — State v. Robinson (2000)
- concluding that petition circulators’ “right freely to engage in discussions concerning the need for that change” that the initiative sponsors seek to effectuate “is guarded by the First Amendment” — Are You Listening Yet PAC v. Henderson (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*479] Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
The constitutionality of a criminal obscenity statute is the question in each of these cases. In Roth, the primary constitutional question is whether the federal obscenity statute [1] violates the provision of the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .” In Alberts, the primary constitutional question is whether the obscenity provisions of the California Penal Code [2] invade the freedoms of speech and press as they may be incorporated in [*480] the liberty protected from state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Other constitutional questions are: whether these statutes violate due process,[3] because too vague to support conviction for crime; whether power to punish speech and press offensive to decency and morality is in the States alone, so that the federal obscenity statute violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (raised in Roth); and whether Congress, by enacting the federal obscenity statute, under the power delegated by Art. I, § 8, cl. 7, to establish post offices and post roads, pre-empted the regulation of the subject matter (raised in Alberts).
Statutes cited
Cite this
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.