Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Roth v. United States, 1957 — 352 U.S. 964 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Roth v. United States
352 U.S. 964·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 582.
Roth v. United States.
David von G. Albrecht, David P. Siegel and Peter Belsito for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted, limited to questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition for the writ which read as follows:
“1. Does the federal obscenity statute (18 U. S. C. § 1461, 62 Stat. 768, 69 Stat. 183) violate the freedom of speech and freedom of the press guarantees of the First Amendment?
“2. Does the federal obscenity statute (18 U. S. C. § 1461, 62 Stat. 768, 69 Stat. 183) violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
“3. Does the federal obscenity statute (18 U. S. C. § 1461, 62 Stat. 768, 69 Stat. 183) violate the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments in that it improperly invades powers reserved to the States and to the people?”