Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Collins v. California.

• 1962 • 372 U.S. 709 • Warren Court
In the case of Collins v. California in 1962, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that prohibited possession of obscene materials violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The appellant, Marvin Miller, had been convicted under this law for mailing brochures advertising adult books and films which were deemed as obscene by local authorities. He appealed his conviction arguing that it infringed upon his constitutional rights to free expression and...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1962
Docket: 599 M
372 U.S. 709
83 S. Ct. 1021
10 L. Ed. 2d 127
1963 U.S. LEXIS 1813

Collins v. California.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Collins v. California in 1962, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that prohibited possession of obscene materials violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The appellant, Marvin Miller, had been convicted under this law for mailing brochures advertising adult books and films which were deemed as obscene by local authorities. He appealed his conviction arguing that it infringed upon his constitutional rights to free expression and due process. The court ruled in favor of Miller stating that states have a legitimate interest in regulating obscenity and protecting public morals. It held that not all forms of expression are protected under the First Amendment; specifically those with prurient interests or lacking serious literary, artistic or scientific value can be regulated without violating constitutional rights. This ruling established what is now known as "the Miller test" for determining if material is legally obscene: (1) whether 'the average person applying contemporary community standards' would find that work appeals to prurient interest; (2) whether it depicts sexual conduct defined by state law in an offensive way; and (3) whether it lacks serious literary, artistic or scientific value.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Collins v. California, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn a state obscenity law was an overreach of federal power and undermined states' rights. He contended that individual states should have the authority to determine their own standards regarding what constitutes obscene material, rather than having a uniform national standard imposed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative societal impacts resulting from unrestricted access to obscene materials. He believed this could lead to moral decay and harm public welfare. In his view, it is not unconstitutional for a state government to regulate such matters in order protect its citizens’ morals and general wellbeing.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Apr 15, 1963
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms