In the 1970 case United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, Milton Luros attempted to import explicit photographs into the U.S., which were seized by customs officials under obscenity laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Luros, stating that while obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, it must be proven as such through a judicial process before being confiscated or restricted. The court found that current law did not provide an expedient enough procedure for this determination and thus violated the First Amendment's protection against vague censorship laws. As a result of this ruling, Congress was required to establish more specific guidelines for determining what constitutes obscenity and how it should be handled legally.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated First Amendment rights by allowing censorship of imported materials deemed obscene. He contended that this ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions where the court had struck down state laws censoring obscenity on similar grounds. Furthermore, he disagreed with the notion that a judicial determination of obscenity could be made without violating constitutional rights to free speech and press. Justice Black also criticized Congress' attempt to delegate its legislative powers to judges in determining what constitutes as 'obscene'. He concluded his dissent by reiterating his belief in an absolute interpretation of First Amendment protections against governmental interference or control over speech and press.