Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsoverbreadthfacial challengepartial invalidationseverabilityFirst AmendmentobscenityMiller test

Facts

Washington enacted a moral nuisance statute imposing criminal and civil penalties on dealing in obscene materials and prostitution-related activity. The statute defined obscene matter using the three-part obscenity framework and defined "prurient" as "that which incites lasciviousness or lust." Appellees, who sold sexually oriented books and movies to adults, sued immediately after the law took effect, arguing that including "lust" made the statute overbroad because it reached material that arouses only normal, healthy sexual interest. The Ninth Circuit accepted that reading and struck down the entire statute as facially invalid.

Issue

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in invalidating the Washington obscenity statute in its entirety because its definition of "prurient" included matter that incites "lust." More specifically, the question was whether any overbreadth in that definition required facial invalidation of the whole statute or only partial invalidation of the offending applications.

Rule

A federal court should not invalidate a statute more broadly than necessary. Even in First Amendment cases, when the parties before the court are those whose own protected expression is allegedly reached, an overbroad but severable statute should be invalidated only insofar as it reaches protected expression, unless countervailing considerations or inseverability require broader relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute banning distribution of obscene magazines. The statute tracks the usual three-part obscenity test, except it defines "prurient" as material that excites "desire or appetite," and the law contains a severability clause. A group of Portland bookstore owners alleges the definition reaches some constitutionally protected adult materials they sell.

If a federal court agrees that the phrase "desire or appetite" sweeps in some protected expression, what is the best disposition?

Explanation. The majority held that a federal court should not invalidate a statute more broadly than necessary. Even in a First Amendment setting, where the challengers are the speakers whose own protected expression is allegedly covered, the proper remedy is ordinarily partial invalidation if the invalid applications are severable and the remainder remains operative.