United States v. Williams (2008)
| United States v. Williams | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 30, 2007 Decided May 19, 2008 | |
| Full case name | United States, Petitioner v. Michael Williams |
| Docket no. | 06-694 |
| Citations | 553 U.S. 285 (more) 128 S. Ct. 1830; 170 L. Ed. 2d 650; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4314; 76 U.S.L.W. 4275; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 238 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted and sentenced, No. 04–20299, (S.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2004); rev'd, 444 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006); 549 U.S. 1304 (2007). |
| Holding | |
| Federal statute prohibiting the pandering of child pornography was not unconstitutionally overbroad. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito |
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Breyer |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I; 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) (PROTECT Act of 2003) | |
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.
The decision overturned the Eleventh Circuit's ruling that the statute was facially void for overbreadth and vagueness. The Supreme Court reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions, and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network" does not in fact criminalize a "substantial amount of protected speech."