InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. the Free Speech Coalition et al.

The Court struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech, rejecting a bid to widen categorically unprotected speech.· AI-written

535 U.S. 234 · No. 00-795 · 2001 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Apr 16, 2002 · argued Oct 30, 2001

First Amendment · Obscenity, federal

Struck down an act of Congress

Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. lost.

What this ruling means

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

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. 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.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech". The case was brought against the U.S. government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry", along with Bold Type, Inc., a "publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle"; Jim Gingerich, who paints nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer who specialized in erotic images. By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment.

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 2001 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSouterBreyerO'ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas

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
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.Attorney general of the United States, or his office
Respondent
the Free Speech Coalition et al.Publisher, publishing company
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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. § 2252
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Struck down
An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
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. Apr 16, 2002DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. lost.
  2. Oct 30, 2001ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern 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. 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

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

  8. Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v. United States509 U.S. 544Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 544First Amendment5–45–4 band
  9. 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

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

  13. Hamling et al. v. United States418 U.S. 87Jun 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 87First Amendment5–45–4 band
  14. United States v. Orito413 U.S. 139Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 139First Amendment5–45–4 band
  15. 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

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

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

  18. Blount, Postmaster General, et al. v. Rizzi, dba the Mail Box400 U.S. 410Jan 14, 1971 · 400 U.S. 410First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  19. 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

  20. Ginzburg et al. v. United States383 U.S. 463Mar 21, 1966 · 383 U.S. 463First Amendment5–45–4 band
  21. 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
  22. Roth v. United StatesLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press354 U.S. 476Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 476First Amendment6–36–3 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.