Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.

Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 20, 1985 Decided June 19, 1985
Full case name	Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.
Citations	472 U.S. 491 (more) 105 S.Ct. 2794; 86 L. Ed. 394
Holding
that a law with a severability clause is not to be struck down unless severing the unconstitutional portions of the law would make it unworkable
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority	White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Concurrence	O'Connor, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Dissent	Brennan, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
Washington Revised Code §§ 7.48A.010-7.48A.900, The Washington moral nuisance code

Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that though portions of a law against obscenity and prostitution might be invalid, it would not be invalidated as a whole unless severing unconstitutional provisions would result in an unworkable law.

The state law punished the publication of obscene materials. Obscene or lewd materials were defined by the law included all materials the appeal the prurient interest, among other things. Prurient was defined as material that incites lasciviousness or lust. The law was challenged as overbroad under the first amendment because material that arouses only a "normal, healthy interest in sex" is constitutionally protected, but was banned by the law.

The court agreed with lower court rulings that the law was overbroad, however found that the entire statute could not be stricken. The code contained a severability provision indicating that the law should not be completely invalidated unless the one unconstitutional provision could not be stricken without making the law unworkable. The Court remanded the case to allow the lower court to decide if the objectionable provision could be stricken and the remainder of the law upheld.

References