Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 684 (1959)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
A New York law required anyone who wished to distribute a motion picture to first obtain a license from the state education department. The law also prohibited a license from issuing if the motion picture depicted sexual immorality. Kingsley International Pictures Corporation (Kingsley) (plaintiff), a distributor, sought and was denied a license for its motion picture Lady Chatterley’s Lover because the Motion Picture Division of the New York Education Department found three scenes in the film immoral within the meaning of the New York law. Kingsley petitioned the Regents of the University of the State of New York (Regents) (defendant) for a review of that ruling. The Regents upheld the department’s denial of the license but on broader grounds that the entire theme of the film—adultery—was immoral under the law because it presented adultery as a desirable, acceptable, and proper pattern of behavior. The New York Court of Appeals unanimously rejected any notion that the film was obscene but cited the provision of the law that required the department to deny a license to films that are immoral or portray acts of sexual immorality as desirable, acceptable, or proper patterns of behavior. Kingsley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.