William pryor on gays and jail

Know more. Courtney W. Tarver, Dept. Michael L. Fees, Fees Burgess, P. Jackson, Jr. Ina statute enacted by the legislature of the State of Alabama amended the obscenity provisions of the Alabama Code to make the distribution of certain defined sexual devices a criminal offense.

Vendors and users of such devices filed a constitutional challenge to the statute. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. The court permanently enjoined enforcement of the statute.

We reverse and remand. The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts, reprinted in full in the district court's published opinion. See Williams v. Pryor, 41 F. After the amendment, the Alabama Code obscenity provisions provide, in pertinent part, the following:.

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing william pryor on gays and jail pecuniary value.

See id. The State has conceded the statute's proscription of the distribution of sexual devices in Alabama does not apply to devices acquired as gifts or by purchases in another state. The statute also does not restrict possession or use of a sexual device by an individual, but only the commercial distribution of the devices.

We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term "sexual device" in place of the cumbersome phrase "device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of the human genital organs. The plaintiffs-appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices.

The stipulated facts contain two expert opinions that describe the standard medical and psychological therapeutic uses of sexual devices, including their frequent prescription in marital and non-marital sexual or relationship counseling — often as a necessary component for successful therapy.

The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute, such as ribbed condoms or the virility drug Viagra. The district court performed a careful evaluation of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges.

After considering Supreme Court precedent, the court determined the statute does not implicate previously recognized fundamental constitutional rights. The court also declined to extend those rights to provide a fundamental right to the use of sexual devices, a right that would be burdened by the statute.

The district court next reviewed the statute under rational basis scrutiny and concluded the statute lacked a rational basis. The court accordingly held the statute unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

WILLIAMS v. PRYOR

We review de novo the district court's decision on the constitutionality of a statute. See, e. Florida Bar, F. Broward County, F.