Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentStandingCertification of State Law Questionsstandingpre-enforcement challengeoverbreadthself-censorship

Facts

Virginia amended its existing law regulating the sale of materials harmful to juveniles to make it unlawful knowingly to display such materials for commercial purpose in a manner whereby juveniles may examine and peruse them. Plaintiffs, including booksellers and bookseller associations, argued that the display restriction would force costly compliance measures and substantially burden adults' access to nonobscene materials. The State argued the statute reached only a narrow category of borderline obscene works and could be complied with in less burdensome ways. The record did not provide reliable support for the lower courts' broad understanding of the statute's scope, and no Virginia court had authoritatively construed the key statutory language.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring a pre-enforcement facial First Amendment challenge to Virginia's display statute, and whether the Supreme Court should decide the constitutional questions immediately or instead obtain an authoritative construction of the statute from the Virginia Supreme Court. More specifically, the Court considered whether uncertainty about the statute's scope and compliance requirements made certification appropriate.

Rule

A plaintiff has standing in federal court when it alleges an injury in fact, including a credible threat that a law aimed directly at it will force significant compliance measures or risk criminal prosecution. In the First Amendment context, litigants may raise overbreadth claims based on the likely chilling effect on the speech rights of others. When a state statute's uncertain meaning substantially affects the constitutional analysis and no authoritative state-court construction exists, the Court may certify questions to the state's highest court rather than decide the constitutional issues on an uncertain reading; and a narrowing construction can save a statute only if the statute is readily susceptible to that construction.

🔒

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 misdemeanor statute making it unlawful for any retail seller in Portland to display for commercial purposes any magazine deemed "unsuitable for minors" where minors may leaf through it. Before the law takes effect, Rose City Books and a trade association sue in federal court, alleging they must either redesign their store layouts at significant expense or risk prosecution, and that they will remove many lawful titles from display to avoid liability.

Do the booksellers have standing to bring a pre-enforcement facial challenge?

Explanation. A plaintiff has standing when it alleges an injury in fact—threatened or actual injury from the challenged law. In this setting, the law is aimed directly at the booksellers, and if their reading is correct they must take significant and costly compliance measures or risk criminal prosecution. The Court also emphasized that the danger includes self-censorship, which is a cognizable First Amendment injury even before prosecution. (Derived from Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, Inc. (n.d.).)