Miller v. California arose from a case involving Marvin Miller, who had sent unsolicited advertisements for adult films to various recipients. Following complaints about the materials, he was charged under California law for distributing obscene materials. Miller contended that his actions fell under the protection of the First Amendment; however, the California courts upheld his conviction, leading him to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case reached the Court in the early 1970s amidst growing concerns about obscenity in media, particularly due to the liberalized cultural landscape of the era.

On June 21, 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 ruling that established what is now known as the Miller test for obscenity. The Court articulated a three-part standard to determine whether material is considered obscene: (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, as defined by state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This decision sought to balance the First Amendment protections of free speech with the community's interest in regulating obscenity. By leaving the definition of what constitutes obscenity to local jurisdictions, the Miller test allowed for variations in standards based on community norms. The ruling had significant implications for the distribution and regulation of sexually explicit material in the United States, providing a legal framework for future obscenity cases.