The United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., et al., 1990 case involved a grand jury subpoena issued to three companies operating peep show booths in Virginia and North Carolina for records related to an investigation into possible violations of federal obscenity laws. The companies moved to quash the subpoenas arguing that they were overly broad and amounted to harassment by the government because there was no reasonable likelihood that materials sought would produce evidence of a crime under applicable obscenity standards. The District Court denied their motion but modified some aspects of the subpoenas, while the Court of Appeals reversed this decision stating that it was necessary for courts reviewing such motions to scrutinize them closely due its First Amendment implications. However, when appealed at Supreme Court level, it held that standard applied by appellate court was inappropriate as grand juries have wide investigative powers and are not limited only on basis if there is already clear evidence of crime being committed or not; rather they can investigate merely on suspicion that law may be violated which might lead towards indictable offenses. It also clarified role played by courts in overseeing these proceedings should be minimal unless there is substantial claim showing abuse or violation against constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold subpoenas issued by a grand jury investigation into possible violations of federal obscenity laws was flawed. He contended that it failed to adequately protect First Amendment rights and did not require sufficient justification from the government for its intrusion into private affairs. The justice believed that this ruling would allow prosecutors too much leeway in issuing broad, sweeping subpoenas without demonstrating their relevance or necessity to an ongoing investigation, thereby potentially infringing upon constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as free speech rights.