Marks v. United States
430 U.S. 188 · Decided March 1, 1977 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Marks v. United States was decided on March 1, 1977 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Obscenity, federal” in the First Amendment area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 430 U.S. 188 · 97 S. Ct. 990 · 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 · 1977 U.S. LEXIS 52
- Docket number
- 75-708
- Decided
- March 1, 1977
- Argued
- November 1, 1976
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Lewis F. Powell Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Obscenity, federal
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Dissent | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Marks et al. v. United States
SCDB identifiers: case 1976-060, docket 1976-060-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Obscenity, federal”
- Smith v. United States
- Pinkus v. United States
- Hamling v. United States
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film (Paladini
- United States v. Orito
- United States v. Reidel
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (due process)
- Moody v. Daggett
- Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.
- United States v. Agurs
- Mathews v. Diaz
- Hampton v. Mow Sun WongLaw held unconstitutional
- Mathews v. Eldridge
Same Term, same area (First Amendment)
- Parker Seal Co. v. Cummins
- City of Madison Joint School District No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
- Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
- Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court in and for Oklahoma County
- Wooley v. Maynard et Ux.Law held unconstitutional
- Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of WillingboroLaw held unconstitutional
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error