Kutler Vs. U.S.

Kutler vs U.S.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1975

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/103878

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/103878
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1975
Case Number: 423 U.S. 959
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kutler

Respondent

U.S.

Excerpt

.....common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce-- '(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, page 423 u.s. 959 , 960 pamphlet, picture, motionpicture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; . . . * * * * * 'shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.' the court of appeals for the third circuit affirmed the convictions. i adhere to my dissent in united states v. orito, 413 u.s. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 u.s.c. 1462, i expressed the view that '[w]hatever 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, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.' id., at 147-148. for the reasons stated in my dissent in miller v. california, 413 u.s. 15, 47 d 419 (1973), i would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the court of appeals for the third circuit was rendered after orito, reverse. [ footnote 1 ] in that circumstance, i have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. see heller v. new york, 413 u.s. 483, 494 (1973) (brennan, j., dissenting). footnotes footnote 2 united states v. 12 200-ft. reels of film, 413 u.s. 123 , 130-138 (1973); ginzburg v. united states, 383 u.s. 463 , 491-492 (1966); roth v. united states, 354 u.s. 476 , 508-514 (1957). footnote 3 ginzburg v. united states, 383 u.s. 463, 476 , 16 l. ed.2d 31 (1966). footnote 1 although four of us would grant and reverse, the justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.

Full Judgment

KUTLER v. U.S. - 423 U.S. 959 (1975)
U.S. Supreme Court KUTLER v. U.S. , 423 U.S. 959 (1975)

423 U.S. 959

Michael KUTLER
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 75-236.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 11, 1975

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1975.

See 423 U.S. 1039.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of shipping obscene films by common carrier in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462, and of conspiracy to violate 1462 and to transport the films in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution in violation of 18 U.S.C . 1465. 18 U.S.C. 1462 provides in pertinent part:

'Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce--

'(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book,

Page 423 U.S. 959 , 960

pamphlet, picture, motionpicture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; . . .

* * * * *

'Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.'

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions.

I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U.S.C. 1462, I expressed the view that '[w]hatever 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, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.' Id., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 47 d 419 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse. [ Footnote 1 ]

In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Footnotes

Footnote 2 United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 , 130-138 (1973); Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 , 491-492 (1966); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 508-514 (1957).

Footnote 3 Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 476 , 16 L. Ed.2d 31 (1966).

Footnote 1 Although four of us would grant and reverse, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.

Same Court & Year US Supreme Court · 1975 Same Parties Kutler vs U.S. Same Subject Education