United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant)
The Court held that the First Amendment did not require that citizens be allowed to import obscene material for their personal and private use at home.· AI-written
413 U.S. 123 · No. 70-2 · 1972 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 21, 1973 · argued Jan 19, 1972, reargued Nov 7, 1972
First Amendment · Obscenity, federal
Majority opinion: Warren Burger
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Vacated and remanded. United States won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the California Central U.S. District Court, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973), was an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court that considered the question of whether the First Amendment required that citizens be allowed to import obscene material for their personal and private use at home, which was already held to be protected several years earlier. By a 5–4 margin, the Court held that it did not.
This case was very similar to United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, a case the Court had heard two years earlier. It began when the films, and other visual and textual material with predominant explicit sexual content, were seized by customs agents from Paladini, a California man returning from Mexico. Federal law at the time prohibited the import of any material that might be judged to be obscene. Paladini challenged the forfeiture proceedings the government initiated, on the grounds that he intended the material for his personal use in the privacy of his own home, an activity the Court had ruled was protected under the First Amendment in Stanley v. Georgia. Thus, he argued, he had a right to obtain such material abroad for that purpose.
After a district court panel agreed with him and declared the statute unconstitutional, the case went to the Supreme Court directly. Its opinion was one of four obscenity cases handed down, along with Miller v. California, in which the Court announced a new standard of obscenity for the first time since Roth v. United States 17 years before. By a 5–4 margin, the Court held that the statute was constitutional, but it also ordered the district court to review the material under its new standard and consider whether it was still obscene.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority, reaffirming a similar holding in Thirty-seven Photographs that the right to possess something in one's home which might otherwise be unlawful outside of it did not give rise to a right to import it. William O. Douglas wrote a lengthy dissent, responding as much to the majority holding in Miller, arguing that history showed obscenity laws were not vigorously enforced at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted and thus could not be justified on traditionalist grounds. William Brennan wrote a shorter dissent, joined by the other two justices, calling the statute overbroad.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1972 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Warren BurgerWrote the majority opinion
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
William BrennanWrote a dissent
Thurgood MarshallJoined a dissent
Potter StewartJoined a dissent
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant)Movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required 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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- 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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 21, 1973DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. United States won.
- Nov 7, 1972RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Jan 19, 1972ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the California Central 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
23 other argued cases since 1946 on obscenity, federal, newest first.
- Lockhart v. United States577 U.S. 347Mar 1, 2016 · 577 U.S. 347First Amendment6–27–2 band
- United States v. Michael Williams553 U.S. 285May 19, 2008 · 553 U.S. 285First Amendment7–27–2 band
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 AmendmentLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., et al.513 U.S. 64Nov 29, 1994 · 513 U.S. 64First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v. United States509 U.S. 544Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 544First Amendment5–45–4 band
- 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
- Pinkus, dba Rosslyn News Co. et al. v. United States436 U.S. 293May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 293First Amendment8–18–1 band
- Smith v. United States431 U.S. 291May 23, 1977 · 431 U.S. 291First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Marks et al. v. United States430 U.S. 188Mar 1, 1977 · 430 U.S. 188First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Hamling et al. v. United States418 U.S. 87Jun 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 87First Amendment5–45–4 band
- United States v. Orito413 U.S. 139Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 139First Amendment5–45–4 band
- United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs (Luros, Claimant)402 U.S. 363May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 363First Amendment6–36–3 band
- United States v. Reidel402 U.S. 351May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 351First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Blount, Postmaster General, et al. v. Rizzi, dba the Mail Box400 U.S. 410Jan 14, 1971 · 400 U.S. 410First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- 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
- Ginzburg et al. v. United States383 U.S. 463Mar 21, 1966 · 383 U.S. 463First Amendment5–45–4 band
- 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 AmendmentLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press6–18–1 band
- Roth v. United StatesLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press354 U.S. 476Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 476First AmendmentLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press6–36–3 band
- 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.
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.