Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.
472 U.S. 491, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 127, 86 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a statute is unconstitutionally overbroad, a federal court should invalidate it only to the extent of its overbreadth and not declare it facially invalid in its entirety, unless the overbreadth is substantial and the statute is not susceptible to a limiting construction.
Facts:
- The State of Washington enacted a 'moral nuisance' law targeting businesses that dealt in obscenity.
- The statute defined 'lewd matter' using a three-part test similar to the Miller test for obscenity.
- The first part of the test required that the material appeal to the 'prurient interest.'
- The statute further defined 'prurient' as 'that which incites lasciviousness or lust.'
- Spokane Arcades, Inc. and other businesses sold sexually oriented books and movies to the adult public.
- These businesses feared that the state would enforce the new law against them for selling materials they believed were protected by the First Amendment.
- The businesses were concerned that the word 'lust' could be interpreted broadly to include a normal, healthy interest in sex, thereby making the statute overbroad.
Procedural Posture:
- Spokane Arcades, Inc. and other sellers of sexually-oriented materials sued state and county officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
- The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing the state's new moral nuisance law was unconstitutional.
- The District Court initially issued a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement.
- After a trial on the merits, the District Court rejected the constitutional challenges and upheld the statute.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face and declaring it null and void in its entirety.
- The defendant state and county officials (Brockett, et al.) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state obscenity statute's potentially unconstitutional overbreadth, stemming from its definition of 'prurient' to include 'lust,' require facial invalidation of the entire statute under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A state obscenity statute's potential overbreadth does not automatically require its complete facial invalidation; rather, the appropriate remedy is to invalidate the statute only to the extent that it reaches constitutionally protected speech. The Court of Appeals found the statute overbroad because its definition of 'prurient' included 'lust,' which the court construed as reaching material that arouses only normal, healthy sexual desires protected by the First Amendment. However, facial invalidation is an improvident and overly broad remedy. The normal rule is that a statute should be invalidated only as far as necessary. The overbreadth doctrine, which allows a party to challenge a statute on its face because it may chill the protected speech of others, applies primarily when the overbreadth is 'substantial.' Here, the parties challenging the statute are the very ones who wish to publish the material potentially covered by the overbroad definition. Therefore, the proper course is partial invalidation: the Washington law should have been invalidated only 'insofar as the word 'lust' is to be understood as reaching protected materials.' The statute also contains a severability clause, indicating the legislature's intent for the remainder of the law to stand if one part is found invalid.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, which invalidated the statute on its face, should be affirmed. This position is consistent with the reasoning articulated in the dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, which argued that state statutes seeking to regulate obscenity are inherently unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. The Court of Appeals erred in declaring the statute facially invalid, but the federal courts should not have reached the merits of the case at all. The proper course of action would have been for the federal courts to abstain from deciding the case under the Pullman abstention doctrine. Because the state statute had never been enforced or authoritatively interpreted by a Washington state court, the state courts should have been given the first opportunity to provide a limiting construction of the term 'lust.' Such a construction might have obviated the need for a federal constitutional ruling. However, since the majority reached the merits, its conclusion that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the correct remedy is the correct one.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine. It establishes a strong preference for partial invalidation over facial invalidation as a remedy, thereby promoting judicial restraint. The decision clarifies that the drastic remedy of striking down an entire statute should be reserved for cases of 'substantial' overbreadth where third parties' speech might be chilled. For future cases, this precedent requires courts to first consider whether a problematic portion of a statute can be severed or narrowly construed before declaring the entire legislative act void, especially when the challenging party's own speech is directly at issue.
