Supreme Court of the United States, 1973

Miller v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 25, 1973 · Ante, Brennan, California, Cer, Judgments, Marshall, Stewart, Tiorari

413 U.S. 913 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

59 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Cinema I Video, Inc. v. Thornburg (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Mayes (N.C. Ct. App. 1987)
People v. Anderson (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)
United States v. Kenneth Guarino (1st Cir. 1984)
United States v. Arthur Randall Sanders, Jr., Gulf Coast News Agency, Inc., Trans World America, Inc., A/K/A Twa, Inc., and William Walter (5th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Chris Palmer (10th Cir. 1979)
Ward v. Illinois (Supreme Court of the United States 1977)
United States v. Richard Alan Haes, D/B/A H & H Distributing Co. (8th Cir. 1977)
Marvin Miller v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1975)
Commonwealth v. Kozak (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
State v. Morris (Ohio 1975)
United States v. Cosmo 'Gus' Cangiano and Elana Marie Isola (2d Cir. 1974)
Maestas v. State (Nev. 2012)
New York State National Organization For Women v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2001)
New York State National Organization for Women v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2001)
Lee v. City of Rome, Ga. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1994)
United States v. August Carl Benz (11th Cir. 1984)
Donohoe v. Watt (District Court, District of Columbia 1982)
James Piepenburg v. Roger Cutler, City Attorney of Salt Lake City, Utah, and E. D. Hayward, Sheriff of Salt Lake County, Utah (10th Cir. 1981)
United States v. Hank Jennings (4th Cir. 1981)
State v. Bumanglag (Haw. 1981)
United States v. Giresi (District Court, D. New Jersey 1980)
United States v. Ramon Rodriguez and Michael Buttigieg (6th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Arthur Randall Sanders, Jr., Gulf Coast News Agency, Inc., Trans World America, Inc., A/K/A Twa, Inc. And William Walter (5th Cir. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 431 F. 2d 655;

Ct. App. D. C. Reported below: 277 A. 2d 477;

C. A. 10th Cir. Reported below: 445 F. 2d 945;

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 455 F. 2d 899; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 475 F. 2d 1393. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, ante, p. 15; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, p. 49; *914Kaplan v. California, ante, p. 115; United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels Film, ante, p. 123; United States v. Orito, ante, p. 139; Heller v. New York, ante, p. 483; Roaden v. Kentucky, ante, p. 496; and Alexander v. Virginia, ante, p. 836.

Me. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari and reverse the judgments. See Miller v. California, ante, p. 37.

Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Miller v. United States, No. 70-43, involves convictions under 18 U. S. C. §§ 1461 and 1462. Kaplan v. United States, No. 71-40, involves a conviction under D. C. Code Ann. §22-2001 (Supp. III, 1970). Ewing v. United States, No. 71-182, and Miller v. United States, No. 71-1517, involve convictions under 18 U. S. C. § 1461. Cangiano v. United States, No. 72-154, involves convictions under 18 U. S. C. § 1465. Under the view expressed in my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, p. 73, it is clear that the statutes involved in these cases cannot stand. Whatever the extent of the Federal Government’s power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, each of these statutes is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face. See my dissents in Miller v. California, ante, p. 47, and United States v. Orito, ante, p. 147. I would therefore grant the petition for certiorari ■ in each case and reverse each judgment of conviction.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.