# Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc. > Supreme Court of the United States · January 25, 1988 · 484 U.S. 383 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431167 ## Case - **Full name:** VIRGINIA v. AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** January 25, 1988 - **Citations:** 484 U.S. 383; 56 U.S.L.W. 4113; 14 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2145; 108 S. Ct. 636; 98 L. Ed. 2d 782; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 575 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Stevens - **Judges:** Brennan, Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Stevens - **Cited by:** 886 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431167 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that First Amendment plaintiffs had standing because "the law is aimed directly at plaintiffs, who, if their interpretation of the statute is correct, will have to take significant and costly compliance measures or risk criminal prosecution," and that the Court was not… - holding that “where if appears the State will decline to defend a statute if it is read one way'and where the nature and sub- - stance of plaintiffs' constitutional challenge is drastically altered if the statute is read another way, it is essential that we have the benefit . … - finding standing where newly enacted statute had not yet been enforced because compliance would have required plaintiffs "to take significant and costly ... measures," and "the alleged danger of th[e] statute [was], in large measure, one of self-censorship; a harm that can be … - holding that to bring a § 1983 cause of action, there must be some "threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action" and that a preenforcement suit is justified where there exists a well-founded fear of enforcement that would infringe upon the exercise… - holding that plaintiffs pleaded Article III injury where they alleged “actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against them,” explaining that “alleged danger of this statute is . . . one of self-censorship; a harm that can be realized even without an actual … ## Opinion text Justice Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in part. A matter as important as the constitutionality of a state statute should not be decided on the basis of an advocate’s concession during oral argument in this Court. The Assistant Attorney General was certainly correct when he conceded that a statutory restriction on the commercial display of The Penguin Book of Love Poetry would be unconstitutional, but it is less clear that none of the 16 exhibits introduced by the plaintiffs could be subjected to the statutory prohibition. Moreover, the colloquy that is partially quoted ante, at 393-394, n. 8, is neither entirely unambiguous nor *399 equivalent to a formal commitment by the State to dismiss the appeal if the Virginia Supreme Court advises us that one or more of the exhibits is covered by the statute. I would therefore modify the first certified question to ask the state court which, if any, of the plaintiff’s exhibits is covered by the statute. Because the arguable literary, artistic, or scientific value of the exhibits varies widely, as does the character of the sexual references in the different books, an answer to the question I would ask would be of great help in understanding the reach of the statute and evaluating its validity. Accordingly, while I am in substantial agreement with what the Court has written, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s refusal to ask the question that I have proposed. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431167. Public record. Not legal advice.