InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Roth v. United States

The Court, in a case on what counts as obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment, created a new test for obscenity, upheld the defendant's conviction and allowed some obscenity prosecutions, while drastically loosening obscenity laws.· AI-written

354 U.S. 476 · No. 582 · 1956 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 24, 1957 · argued Apr 22, 1957

First Amendment · Obscenity, federal

Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press

Majority opinion: William Brennan

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Roth lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Roth was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court, in an opinion by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. created a test to determine what constituted obscene material: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to a prurient interest in sex, and whether the material was utterly without redeeming social value. Although the Court upheld Roth’s conviction and allowed some obscenity prosecutions, it drastically loosened obscenity laws. The decision dissatisfied both social conservatives who thought that it had gone too far in tolerating sexual imagery, and liberals who felt that it infringed on the rights of consenting adults.

The decision was modified by Miller v. California (1973), which removed the "utterly without redeeming social value" test, and replaced it with a three-part test. In that case, Justice Brennan dissented, repudiating his previous position in Roth, arguing that states could not ban the sale, advertisement, or distribution of obscene materials to consenting adults.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1956 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenBrennanClarkFrankfurterWhittakerBurtonHarlan

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
RothBookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines
Respondent
United StatesUnited States
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
18 U.S.C. § 1461
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 24, 1957DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Roth lost.
  2. Apr 22, 1957ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

23 other argued cases since 1946 on obscenity, federal, newest first.

  1. Lockhart v. United States577 U.S. 347Mar 1, 2016 · 577 U.S. 347First Amendment6–27–2 band

  2. United States v. Michael Williams553 U.S. 285May 19, 2008 · 553 U.S. 285First Amendment7–27–2 band

  3. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.542 U.S. 656Jun 29, 2004 · 542 U.S. 656First Amendment5–45–4 band

  4. United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc., et al.539 U.S. 194Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 194First Amendment6–36–3 band

  5. John Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.535 U.S. 564May 13, 2002 · 535 U.S. 564First Amendment8–18–1 band

  6. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. the Free Speech Coalition et al.535 U.S. 234Apr 16, 2002 · 535 U.S. 234First Amendment6–36–3 band

  7. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press521 U.S. 844Jun 26, 1997 · 521 U.S. 844First Amendment9–0Unanimous band

  8. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., et al.513 U.S. 64Nov 29, 1994 · 513 U.S. 64First Amendment7–27–2 band

  9. Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v. United States509 U.S. 544Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 544First Amendment5–45–4 band
  10. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.492 U.S. 115Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 115First Amendment6–36–3 band

  11. Pinkus, dba Rosslyn News Co. et al. v. United States436 U.S. 293May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 293First Amendment8–18–1 band
  12. Smith v. United States431 U.S. 291May 23, 1977 · 431 U.S. 291First Amendment5–45–4 band
  13. Marks et al. v. United States430 U.S. 188Mar 1, 1977 · 430 U.S. 188First Amendment5–45–4 band

  14. Hamling et al. v. United States418 U.S. 87Jun 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 87First Amendment5–45–4 band
  15. United States v. Orito413 U.S. 139Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 139First Amendment5–45–4 band
  16. United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant)413 U.S. 123Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 123First Amendment5–45–4 band

  17. United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs (Luros, Claimant)402 U.S. 363May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 363First Amendment6–36–3 band

  18. United States v. Reidel402 U.S. 351May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 351First Amendment7–27–2 band

  19. Blount, Postmaster General, et al. v. Rizzi, dba the Mail Box400 U.S. 410Jan 14, 1971 · 400 U.S. 410First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  20. Rowan, dba American Book Service, et al. v. United States Post Office Department et al.397 U.S. 728May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 728First Amendment8–0Unanimous band

  21. Ginzburg et al. v. United States383 U.S. 463Mar 21, 1966 · 383 U.S. 463First Amendment5–45–4 band
  22. Manual Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Day, Postmaster GeneralLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press370 U.S. 478Jun 25, 1962 · 370 U.S. 478First Amendment6–18–1 band
  23. United States v. Alpers338 U.S. 680Feb 6, 1950 · 338 U.S. 680First Amendment5–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.