In the case of Marcus et al. v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marcus and others who had their property seized under a search warrant that was issued without a proper hearing or judicial determination on whether the materials were obscene. The court held that this violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press as well as Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The justices argued that before any seizure could occur, there needed to be an adversarial proceeding where both parties are heard by a neutral magistrate who would then decide if the material is indeed obscene according to legal standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Marcus et al. v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated First Amendment rights to free speech and press by allowing a search warrant to seize allegedly obscene material without first determining its obscenity in an adversary proceeding. He contended that this case was not about whether obscenity is constitutionally protected (it isn't), but rather how it should be identified and suppressed - through prior restraint or subsequent punishment. The justice believed that the Founders intended to prohibit all forms of prior censorship on expression; thus, he disagreed with using warrants as a form of censorship before judicial determination of obscenity in each specific instance. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuse if police were given too much discretion in deciding what materials are obscene during searches.