[50]*50Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have before us two decisions of the Indiana courts, involving the application of that State’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Civil Remedies for Racketeering Activity (CRRA) Acts to cases involving bookstores containing allegedly obscene materials.
I
The two causes before us arise from wholly unrelated incidents.
A
Petitioner in No. 87-470, Fort Wayne Books, Inc., and two other corporations1 each operated an “adult bookstore” in Fort Wayne, Indiana. On March 19, 1984, the State of Indiana and a local prosecutor, respondents here, filed a civil action against the three corporations and certain of their em[51]*51ployees alleging that defendants had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by repeatedly violating the state laws barring the distribution of obscene books and films, thereby violating the State’s RICO law.2 The complaint recited 39 criminal convictions for selling obscene publications from the three stores. App. 9-37. It was also alleged that there were currently other obscene materials available for sale in the stores. Id., at 37-44. The proceeds from the sales of obscene materials, it was alleged, were being used to operate and maintain the bookstores. Respondents sought civil in-junctive relief to bar further racketeering violations, invoking the State’s CRRA statute, Ind. Code § 34-4-30.5-1 et seq. (1988). Among the remedies requested in the complaint was forfeiture of all of Fort Wayne Books’ property, real and personal, that “was used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through” petitioner’s “racketeering activity.” App. 47. Such forfeiture is authorized by the CRRA statute. Ind. Code § 34-4-30.5-3(a) (1988).
Respondents also moved, in a separate “Verified Petition for Seizure of Property Subject to Forfeiture,” for the particular judicial order that is the subject of our consideration here. Specifically, respondents asked the Allen County Circuit Court “to immediately seize ... all property ‘subject to forfeiture’ as set forth in [the CRRA] complaint.” App. 51. Such pretrial seizures are authorized under Ind. Code § 34-4-30.5-3(b) (1988), which empowers prosecutors bringing CRRA actions to move for immediate seizure of the property subject to forfeiture, and permits courts to issue seizure orders “upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a violation of [the State’s RICO law] involving the property in question has occurred.” The seizure petition was supported [52]*52by an affidavit executed by a local police officer, recounting the 89 criminal convictions involving the defendants, further describing various other books and films available for sale at petitioner’s bookstores and believed by affiant to be obscene, and alleging a conspiracy among several of petitioner’s employees and officers who had previous convictions for obscenity offenses. App. 55-78.
The trial court, ex part-e, heard testimony in support of the petition and had supporting exhibits before it. On the same day, the court entered an order finding that probable cause existed to conclude that Fort Wayne Books was violating the State RICO law, and directing the immediate seizure of the real estate, publications, and other personal property comprising each of the three bookstores operated by the corporate defendants. Id., at 81-83. The court’s order authorized the county sheriff to padlock the stores. This was done, and a few days later, the contents of the stores were hauled away by law enforcement officials. No trial date on the CRRA complaint was ever set.
Following the March 1984 seizure of the bookstores, Fort Wayne Books sought to vacate the ex parte seizure order. An adversarial hearing on a motion to vacate the order based on federal constitutional grounds failed to yield relief. Other efforts to obtain some measure of relief also failed. The trial court did, however, certify the constitutional issues to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In June 1985, that court held that the relevant RICO/CRRA provisions were violative of the United States Constitution. 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, 479 N. E. 2d 578 (Ind. App.).3 The Indiana Supreme Court re[53]*53versed, upholding the constitutionality of the CRRA statute as a general proposition and the pretrial seizure of Fort Wayne Books’ store as a specific matter. 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, 504 N. E. 2d 559 (1987).
We granted Fort Wayne’s petition for certiorari, 485 U. S. 938 (1988), for the purpose of considering the substantial constitutional issues raised by the pretrial seizure.
B
In No. 87-614, an investigation of adult bookstores in Howard County, Indiana, led prosecutors there, in April 1985, to charge petitioner Sappenfield with six counts of distribution of obscene matter, in violation of Ind. Code § 35-49-3-1 (1988). In addition, employing the 1984 amendments to the Indiana RICO statute discussed above, prosecutors used these alleged predicate acts of obscenity as a basis for filing two charges of RICO violations against petitioner. App. 142-143,148-149. The obscenity charges were Class A misdemeanors under Indiana law, the racketeering offenses Class C felonies.
The trial court dismissed the two RICO counts on the ground that the RICO statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the charges against petitioner. Relying on the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion under review here in No. 87-470, 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, supra, the Court of Appeals held that “Indiana’s RICO statute is not unconstitutional as applied to the State’s obscenity statute.” 505 N. E. 2d 504, 506 (1987). The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review this holding of the Indiana Court of Appeals.
[54]*54We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 933 (1988), and consolidated this case with No. 87-470, to consider the common and separate issues presented by both cases.
II
Since it involves challenges to the constitutionality of the Indiana RICO statute, we deal first with No. 87-614.
As noted above, petitioner was charged with six substantive obscenity violations and two RICO offenses. App. 138-149. Petitioner challenged only the latter charges, raising no objection to the obscenity indictments. Id., at 150. He makes no claim here that the Constitution bars a criminal prosecution for distributing obscene materials.4 Rather, petitioner’s claim is that certain particulars of the Indiana RICO law render the prosecution of petitioner under that statute unconstitutional. Petitioner advances several specific attacks on the RICO statute.
A
Before we address the merits of petitioner’s claims, we must first consider our jurisdiction to hear this case. The relevant statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1257, limits our review to “[fjinal judgments or decrees” of the state courts. The general rule is that finality in the context of a criminal prosecution is defined by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence. See Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 518 (1956); Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212 (1937). Since neither is present here, we would usually conclude that the judgment below is not final and is hence unreviewable.
There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975). Cox [55]*55identified four categories of cases in which a judgment is final even though further proceedings are pending in the state courts. This case fits within the fourth category of cases described in Cox:
“[WJhere the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action ... in the state court proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for the purposes of the state litigation.” Id., at 482-483.
This case clearly satisfies the first sentence of the above-cited passage: petitioner could well prevail on nonfederal grounds at a subsequent trial, and reversal of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ holding would bar further prosecution on the RICO counts at issue here. Thus, the only debatable question is whether a refusal to grant immediate review of petitioner’s claims “might seriously erode federal policy.” Ibid.
Adjudicating the proper scope of First Amendment protections has often been recognized by this Court as a “federal policy” that merits application of an exception to the general finality rule. See, e. g., National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43, 44 (1977) (per curiam); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 246-247 (1974). Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the use of RICO statutes to criminalize patterns of obscenity offenses calls into question the legitimacy of the law enforcement practices of several States, as well as the Federal Gov[56]*56ernment.5 Resolution of this important issue of the possible limits the First Amendment places on state and federal efforts to control organized crime should not remain in doubt. “Whichever way we were to decide on the merits, it would be intolerable to leave unanswered, under these circumstances, an important question of freedom of the press under the First Amendment; an uneasy and unsettled constitutional posture [of the state statute in question] could only further harm the operation of a free press.” Tornillo, supra, at 247, n. 6.
Justice O’Connor contends that a contrary result is counseled here by our decision in Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U. S. 619 (1981) (per curiam). Post, at 69-70. But as the Court understood it, “[t]he question presented for review [in Flynt was] whether on [that] record the decision to prosecute petitioners was selective or discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Flynt, supra, at 622 (emphasis added). The claim before us in Flynt was not a First Amendment claim, but rather an equal protection claim (albeit one in the context of a trial raising First Amendment issues). As a result, Cox’s fourth exception was held to be inapplicable in that case. Though the dissenters in Flynt disagreed with the premise of the Court’s holding, and contended that that case was a First Amendment dispute that demanded immediate attention under Cox’s fourth exception, see 451 U. S., at 623 (Stewart, J., dissenting); id., at 623-624 (Stevens, J., [57]*57dissenting), the fact is that no Member of the Court concluded in Flynt — as Justice O’Connor does today — that where an important First Amendment claim is before us, the Court should refuse to invoke Cox’s fourth exception and hold that we have no authority to address the issue.
Consequently, we conclude that this case, which clearly involves a First Amendment challenge to the facial validity of the Indiana RICO statute, merits review under the fourth exception recognized by Cox to the finality rule.
B
Petitioner’s broadest contention is that the Constitution forbids the use of obscenity violations as predicate acts for a RICO conviction. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is twofold: first, that the Indiana RICO law, as applied to an “enterprise” that has allegedly distributed obscene materials, is unconstitutionally vague; and second, that the potential punishments available under the RICO law are so severe that the statute lacks a “necessary sensitivity to first amendment rights,” Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, p. 23. We consider each of these arguments in turn.
(1)
The “racketeering activities” forbidden by the Indiana RICO law are a “pattern” of multiple violations of certain substantive crimes, of which distributing obscenity (Ind. Code §35-49-3-1) is one. Ind. Code §35-45-6-1 (1988). Thus, the RICO statute at issue wholly incorporates the state obscenity law by reference.
Petitioner argues that the “inherent vagueness” of the standards established by Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), are at the root of his objection to any RICO prosecution based on predicate acts of obscenity. Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 24-33. Yet, this is nothing less than an invitation to overturn Miller — an invitation that we reject. And we note that the Indiana obscenity statute, Ind. Code § 35-49-1-1 et seq. (1988), is closely tailored to conform [58]*58to the Miller standards. Cf. Sedelbauer v. State, 428 N. E. 2d 206, 210-211 (Ind. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 1035 (1982).6 Moreover, petitioner’s motion to dismiss the RICO charges in the trial court rested on the alleged vagueness of that statute, and not any alleged defect in the underlying obscenity law. See App. 150-151, 161-167.
We find no merit in petitioner’s claim that the Indiana RICO law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. Given that the RICO statute totally encompasses the obscenity law, if the latter is not unconstitutionally vague, the former cannot be vague either. At petitioner’s forthcoming trial, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the alleged RICO offense, including the allegation that petitioner violated (or attempted or conspired to violate) the Indiana obscenity law. Cf. Ind. Code §35-45-6-1 (1988); 504 N. E. 2d, at 566. Thus, petitioner cannot be convicted of violating the RICO law without first being “found guilty” of two counts of distributing (or attempting to, or conspiring to, distribute) obscene materials.
It is true, as petitioner argues, Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 16-18, that the punishments available in a RICO prosecution are different from those for obscenity violations. But we fail to see how this difference renders the RICO statute void for vagueness.7
[59]*59(2)
Petitioner’s next contention rests on the difference between the sanctions imposed on obscenity law violators and those imposed on convicted “racketeers”: the sanctions imposed on RICO violators are so “draconian” that they have an improper chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms, petitioner contends. See id., at 12, 17. The use of such “heavy artillery” from the “war on crime” against obscenity is improper, petitioner argues, and therefore, obscenity offenses should not be permitted to be used as predicate acts for RICO purposes.
It is true that the criminal penalties for a RICO violation under Indiana law, a Class C felony, are more severe than those authorized for an obscenity offense, a Class A misdemeanor. Specifically, if petitioner is found guilty of the two ■ RICO counts against him, he faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine; if petitioner were convicted instead of only the six predicate obscenity offenses charged in the indictments, the maximum punishment he could face would be six years in jail and $30,000 in fines. Compare Ind. Code §35-50-2-6 (1988), with Ind. Code §35-50-3-2 (1988). While the RICO punishment is obviously greater than that for obscenity violations, we do not perceive any constitutionally significant difference between the two potential punishments.8 Indeed, the Indiana RICO provisions in this respect function quite similarly to an en[60]*60hanced sentencing scheme for multiple obscenity violations. As such, “[i]t is not for this Court ... to limit the State in resorting to various weapons in the armory of the law.” Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436, 441 (1957).
It may be true that the stiffer RICO penalties will provide an additional deterrent to those who might otherwise sell obscene materials; perhaps this means — as petitioner suggests, Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 20-22 — that some cautious booksellers will practice self-censorship and remove First Amendment protected materials from their shelves. But deterrence of the sale of obscene materials is a legitimate end of state antiobscenity laws, and our cases have long recognized the practical reality that “any form of criminal obscenity statute applicable to a bookseller will induce some tendency to self-censorship and have some inhibitory effect on the dissemination of material not obscene.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 154-155 (1959). Cf. also Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S. 697, 706 (1986). The mere assertion of some possible self-censorship resulting from a statute is not enough to render an antiobscenity law unconstitutional under our precedents.
Petitioner further raises the question whether the civil sanctions available against RICO violations — under the CRRA statute — are so severe as to render the RICO statute itself unconstitutional. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 22-23. However, this contention is not ripe, since the State has not sought any civil penalties in this case. These claims can only be reviewed when (or if) such remedies are enforced against petitioner.
Consequently, we find no constitutional bar to the State’s inclusion of substantive obscenity violations among the predicate offenses under its RICO statute.
C
Finally, petitioner advances two narrower objections to the application of the Indiana RICO statute in obscenity-related prosecutions.
[61]*61(1)
First, petitioner contends that even if the statute is constitutional on its face, “the First Amendment . . . requires that predicate obscenity offenses must be affirmed convictions on successive dates'... in the same jurisdiction as that where the RICO charge is brought.” Id., at 33.
We find no constitutional basis for the claim that the alleged predicate acts used in a RICO/obscenity prosecution must be “affirmed convictions.” We rejected a like contention, albeit in dicta, when considering a case under the Federal RICO statute. See Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 488 (1985). We see no reason for a different rule where the alleged predicate acts are obscenity. As long as the standard of proof is the proper one with respect to all of the elements of the RICO allegation — including proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the requisite number of constitutionally proscribable predicate acts — all of the relevant constitutional requirements have been met. The analogy .suggested by the United States in its amicus brief is apt: “This Court has never required a State to fire warning shots, in the form of misdemeanor prosecutions, before it may bring felony charges for distributing obscene materials.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. We likewise decline to impose such a “warning shot” requirement here.
The second aspect of this claim — that all of the predicate offenses charged must have occurred in the jurisdiction where the RICO indictment is brought — also lacks merit. This contention must be rejected in this case, if for no other reason than the fact that all of petitioner’s alleged predicate acts of distributing obscenity did take place in the same jurisdiction (Howard County) where the RICO prosecution was initiated; petitioner lacks standing to advance this claim on these facts. See App. 138-149. More significantly, petitioner’s suggestion fails because such a rule would essentially turn the RICO statute on its head: barring RICO prosecutions of large national enterprises that commit single predicate offenses in numerous jurisdictions, for example.
[62]*62Of course, petitioner is correct when he argues that “community standards” may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction where different predicate obscenity offenses allegedly were committed. But as long as, for example, each previous obscenity conviction was measured by the appropriate community’s standard, we see no reason why the RICO prosecution-alleging a pattern of such violations — may take place only in a jurisdiction where two or more such offenses have occurred. Cf. Smith v. United States, 431 U. S. 291, 306-309 (1977).
(2)
Second, petitioner contends that he should.have been provided with a prompt adversarial hearing, shortly after his arrest, on the question of the obscenity of the materials he allegedly distributed. Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 36-37.
This contention lacks merit for several reasons. First, it does not appear that petitioner requested such a hearing below. See App. 135-137. Second, unlike No. 87-470, in this case, there was no seizure of any books or films owned by petitioner. The only expressive materials “seized” by Howard County officials in this case were a few items purchased by police officers in connection with their investigation of petitioner’s stores. See id., at 138-147. We have previously rejected the argument that such purchases trigger constitutional concerns. See Maryland v. Macon, 472 U. S. 463, 468-471 (1985).
We consequently affirm the judgment in No. 87-614.
f — I
We reverse, however, the judgment m No. 87-470 sustaining the pretrial seizure order.
In a line of cases dating back to Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717 (1961), this Court has repeatedly held that rigorous procedural safeguards must be employed before expressive materials can be seized as "obscene.” In Marcus, [63]*63and again in A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205 (1964), the Court invalidated large-scale confiscations of books and films, where numerous copies of selected books were seized without a prior adversarial hearing on their obscenity. In those cases, and the ones that immediately came after them, the Court established that pretrial seizures of expressive materials could only be undertaken pursuant-to a “procedure ‘designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity.’” Id., at 210 (quoting Marcus, supra, at 732). See also, e. g., Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U. S. 636 (1968).
We refined that approach further in our subsequent decisions. Most importantly, in Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 492 (1973), the Court noted that “seizing films to destroy them or to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving it as evidence in a criminal proceeding.” As a result, we concluded that until there was a “judicial determination of the obscenity issue in an adversary proceeding,” exhibition of a film could not be restrained by seizing all the available copies of it. Id., at 492-493. The same is obviously true for books or any other expressive materials. While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, the publication may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing. Ibid.; see New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., 475 U. S. 868, 874-876 (1986).
Thus, while the general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that any and all contraband, instrumentalities, and evidence of crimes may be seized on probable cause (and even without a warrant in various circumstances), it is otherwise when materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are involved. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319, 326, n. 5 (1979). It is “[t]he risk of prior re[64]*64straint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protections accorded searches for and seizure of First Amendment materials” that motivates this rule. Maryland v. Macon, supra, at 470. These same concerns render invalid the pretrial seizure at issue here.9
In its decision below, the Indiana Supreme Court did not challenge our precedents or the limitations on seizures that our decisions in this area have established. Rather, the court found those rules largely inapplicable in this case. 504 N. E. 2d, at 564-567. The court noted that the alleged predicate offenses included 39 convictions for violating the State’s obscenity laws10 and observed that the pretrial seizures (which were made in strict accordance with Indiana law) were not based on the nature or suspected obscenity of the contents of the items seized, but upon the neutral ground that the sequestered property represented assets used and acquired in the course of racketeering activity. “The rem[65]*65edy of forfeiture is intended not to restrain the future distribution of presumptively protected speech but rather to disgorge assets acquired through racketeering activity. Stated simply, it is irrelevant whether assets derived from an alleged violation of the RICO statute are or are not obscene.” Id., at 565. The court also specifically rejected petitioner’s claim that the legislative inclusion of violations of obscenity laws as a form of racketeering activity was “merely a semantic device intended to circumvent well-established First Amendment doctrine.” Id., at 564. The assets seized were subject to forfeiture “if the elements of a pattern of racketeering activity are shown,” ibid.; there being probable cause to believe this was the case here, the pretrial seizure was permissible, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded.
We do not question the holding of the court below that adding obscenity-law violations to the list of RICO predicate crimes was not a mere ruse to sidestep the First Amendment. And for the purpose of disposing of this case, we assume without deciding that bookstores and their contents are forfeitable (like other property such as a bank account or a yacht) when it is proved that these items are property actually used in, or derived from, a pattern of violations of the State’s obscenity laws.11 Even with these assumptions, though, we find the seizure at issue here unconstitutional. It is incontestable that these proceedings were begun to put an end to the sale of obscenity at the three bookstores named in the complaint, and hence we are quite sure that the special rules applicable to removing First Amendment materials from circulation are relevant here. This includes specifically [66]*66the admonition that probable cause to believe that there are valid grounds for seizure is insufficient to interrupt the sale of presumptively protected books and films.
Here there was not — and has not been — any determination that the seized items were “obscene” or that a RICO violation has occurred. True, the predicate crimes on which the seizure order was based had been adjudicated and are unchallenged. But the petition for seizure and the hearing thereon were aimed at establishing no more than probable cause to believe that a RICO violation had occurred, and the order for seizure recited no more than probable cause in that respect. As noted above, our cases firmly hold that mere probable cause to believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation. See, e. g., New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., 475 U. S. 868 (1986); Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483 (1973). The elements of a RICO violation other than the predicate crimes remain to be established in this case; e. g., whether the obscenity violations by the three corporations or théir employees established a pattern of racketeering activity, and whether the assets seized were forfeitable under the State’s CRRA statute. Therefore, the pretrial seizure at issue here was improper.
The fact that respondent’s motion for seizure was couched as one under the Indiana RICO law — instead of being brought under the substantive obscenity statute — is unavailing. As far back as the decision in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 720-721 (1931), this Court has recognized that the way in which a restraint on speech is “characterized” under state law is of little consequence. See also Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 462 U. S. 61, 67-68 (1981); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 552-555 (1975). For example, in Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U. S. 308 (1980) (per curiam), we struck down a prior restraint placed on the exhibitions of films under a Texas “public nuisance” statute, finding that its failure to [67]*67comply with our prior case law in this area was a fatal defect. Cf. also Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S., at 708 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that if a “city were to use a nuisance statute as a pretext for closing down a bookstore because it sold indecent books . . . the case would clearly implicate First Amendment concerns and require analysis under the appropriate First Amendment standard of review”). While we accept the Indiana Supreme Court’s finding that Indiana’s RICO law is not “pretextual” as applied to obscenity offenses, it is true that- the State cannot escape the constitutional safeguards of our prior cases by merely recategorizing a pattern of obscenity violations as “racketeering.”
At least where the RICO violation claimed is a pattern of racketeering that can be established only by rebutting the presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First Amendment,12 that presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizing books or other publications is properly established in an adversary proceeding. Here, literally thousands of books and films were carried away and taken out of circulation by the pretrial order. See App. 87; Record 601-627. Yet it remained to be proved whether the seizure was actually warranted under the Indiana CRRA and RICO statutes. If we are to maintain the regard for First Amendment values expressed in our prior decisions dealing with interrupting the flow of expressive materials, the judgment of the Indiana Court must be reversed.13
[68]*68<1
For the reasons given above, the judgment m No. 87-470 is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The judgment in No. 87-614 is affirmed, and it too is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan joins only Parts I, II-A, and III of this opinion, and Justice Stevens joins only Parts I and II-A.