In the 1984 case of Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a Washington state law that defined "prurient" in terms of an average person's interest in sex, rather than an unhealthy or morbid interest. The court found this definition to be overly broad and therefore unconstitutional as it violated First Amendment rights to free speech by potentially criminalizing normal sexual behavior or material related to such behavior. However, instead of striking down the entire law, they opted for partial invalidation - removing only the offending language while leaving intact other parts which could operate independently without violating constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to sever a portion of Washington State's law regulating sexually explicit material was inconsistent with precedent. The dissenters contended that if a statute is unconstitutional in some applications but not others, it should be invalidated only as applied to particular cases rather than being partially struck down on its face. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "prurient interest," arguing that this term has been understood historically to refer specifically to shameful or morbid interests in sex rather than healthy sexual desires. Therefore, they believed Washington’s law did not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights and should have been upheld entirely.