Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, et al. v. Miranda, dba Walnut Properties, et al.
The Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does apply to state criminal proceedings initiated after a federal complaint is filed but before there has been a "proceeding of substance on the merits" in federal court.
422 U.S. 332 · No. 74-156 · 1974 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 24, 1975 · argued Mar 24, 1975
Judicial power · Comity: obscenity
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed. Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the California Central U.S. District Court, and its own ruling ends the case.
Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, et al. 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.
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does apply to state criminal proceedings initiated after a federal complaint is filed but before there has been a "proceeding of substance on the merits" in federal court. The case involved the pornographic film Deep Throat.
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 1974 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
Warren BurgerWrote a concurrence
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Potter StewartWrote a dissent
William DouglasJoined a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Thurgood MarshallJoined 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
- Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, et al.State (California)
- Respondent
- Miranda, dba Walnut Properties, et al.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
- Abstention Doctrine
- Kind of law
- Other
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
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 24, 1975DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, et al. won.
- Mar 24, 1975ArguedArgued · 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
5 other argued cases since 1946 on comity: obscenity, newest first.
- Huffman et al. v. Pursue, Ltd.420 U.S. 592Mar 18, 1975 · 420 U.S. 592Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Speight, T/A Harem Book Store, et al. v. Slaton et al.415 U.S. 333Feb 27, 1974 · 415 U.S. 333Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Mitchum, dba Book Mart v. Foster et al.407 U.S. 225Jun 19, 1972 · 407 U.S. 225Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
- Byrne, District Attorney of Suffolk County, et al. v. Karalexis et al.401 U.S. 216Feb 23, 1971 · 401 U.S. 216Judicial power5–36–3 band
- Perez et al. v. Ledesma et al.401 U.S. 82Feb 23, 1971 · 401 U.S. 82Judicial power5–45–4 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.