Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1921

Dillon v. Gloss

256 U.S. 368 | 41 S. Ct. 510 | 65 L. Ed. 994 | 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1612

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case upheld Congress's power to set a reasonable ratification deadline for a constitutional amendment and confirmed that the Eighteenth Amendment—and the enforcing Prohibition Act—became effective one year after ratification was completed.

Background

Dillon was held in custody on a charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor under §§ 3 and 26 of Title II of the National Prohibition Act. He sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment—and therefore the statute enforcing it—was invalid because Congress had required ratification within seven years.

Dillon also argued that the Prohibition Act had not yet become effective when he allegedly transported the liquor or when he was arrested. The federal district court denied the writ, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Congress could validly require that the Eighteenth Amendment be ratified within seven years of its proposal.

Holding

Yes. Article V implicitly requires ratification within a reasonable time, and Congress may set a definite, reasonable period for ratification.

Reasoning

Article V does not expressly state whether a proposed amendment remains open for ratification indefinitely or whether Congress may impose a deadline. But the Court held that constitutional meaning includes necessary implications as well as express terms.

The structure of Article V indicates that proposal and ratification are connected stages of one constitutional undertaking, not unrelated acts that may be separated by generations. Amendments are proposed when a present necessity is perceived, which implies that the States should consider and resolve the proposal within a reasonably prompt period.

Ratification must reflect a sufficiently contemporaneous expression of the people's will in three-fourths of the States. Ratifications scattered over a very long period would not reliably show that the people of the country, at roughly the same time, supported the amendment.

The contrary position would leave old, partially ratified proposals perpetually pending, allowing ratifications by a present or future generation to combine with approvals cast by representatives of long-past generations. The Court considered that result inconsistent with Article V's purpose.

Congress has broad authority over the mechanics of proposing amendments, including the authority to select the mode of ratification. Setting a reasonable deadline is a subsidiary procedural detail incident to that authority. Seven years was reasonable, particularly because prior successful amendments had been ratified within four years. ამიტომ the seven-year condition did not invalidate the Eighteenth Amendment.

Issue #2

Whether the National Prohibition Act provisions at issue were effective when Dillon allegedly transported liquor and was arrested.

Holding

Yes. The relevant provisions took effect on January 16, 1920, one year after the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and Dillon's alleged offense and arrest occurred the next day.

Reasoning

By its own terms, the Eighteenth Amendment became operative one year after ratification. Ratification was completed on January 16, 1919, when the necessary number of States had approved it.

The Court took judicial notice of the ratification date. The Secretary of State's later proclamation on January 29, 1919, did not control; the legal effect followed from completion of ratification, not from the date on which that fact was officially proclaimed.

Title III of the National Prohibition Act provided that its relevant enforcement provisions would take effect when the Eighteenth Amendment took effect. They therefore became operative on January 16, 1920. Because Dillon's alleged conduct and arrest occurred the following day, his timing challenge failed.