DRUGGAN v. ANDERSON, U. S. MARSHAL, et al.

Supreme Court of the United States1925-10-19No. No. 415

269 U.S. 3646 S. Ct. 1470 L. Ed. 151SCDB 1925-0231925 U.S. LEXIS 3

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment dismissing the habeas corpus petition is affirmed. Congress possessed constitutional authority to enact the National Prohibition Act before the Eighteenth Amendment's operative date because the Amendment became effective law upon ratification, granting Congress present power to pass anticipatory legislation for future enforcement.

A man imprisoned for contempt of court challenged his conviction by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the National Prohibition Act was unconstitutional because Congress passed it on October 28, 1919, before the Eighteenth Amendment's one-year waiting period elapsed (the Amendment was ratified January 16, 1919, making it effective January 16, 1920). He contended the Amendment itself did not exist as law until its prohibition took effect, and therefore Congress lacked authority to legislate in advance.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Amendment became effective as law immediately upon ratification, not when its operative provisions took effect one year later. The Amendment's language—prohibiting certain acts 'after' the one-year period—demonstrated that it operated as present law giving Congress a present power to enact implementing legislation in advance. The Court also rejected a procedural challenge regarding notice requirements for the preliminary injunction.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether legislation enacted before a constitutional amendment's operative date is constitutional
When a constitutional amendment becomes effective as law
Whether Congress may pass laws in advance to implement future constitutional provisions
Validity of preliminary injunctions issued under the Prohibition Act without notice

Procedural posture

The petitioner appealed from an order dismissing his habeas corpus petition on demurrer, challenging his contempt conviction for violating a preliminary injunction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the C^urt.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on demurrer. The petitioner is imprisoned for contempt in disobeying a temporary injunction issued under Section 22 of Title II of the National Prohibition Act; October 28, 1919, c. 85; 41 Stat. 305, 315. The bill upon which the injunction was issued alleged the existence of a public nuisance used for the manufacture, sale, &c., of intoxicating liquor, and charged that the petitioner among others was conducting the business. An injunction was ordered, pendente lite. Subsequently an information was filed against the petitioner and others for contempt and the petitioner was sentenced to a fine and to imprisonment for one year. He was committed to jail on November 11, 1924. The main ground for the present petition is that Title II of the Act, with immaterial exceptions, is unconstitutional because it was enacted before Amendment XVIII of the Constitution went into effect. The Amendment prohibits the manufacture, sale, &c., of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, ‘ after one year from the ratification of this . article’. The date of the ratification is fixed as January 16, 1919, Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U. S. 368, 376, and the National Prohibition Act. was passed on October 28, 1919 before á year from the ratification had expired. It is said that the prohibition is the Amendment; that until there is a prohibition there is no Amendment, and that without the Amendment the Act of Congress, although it was not to go into effect until after the. Amendment did, Title II, § 3, was unauthorized and void.

We will give a few words to this argument notwithstanding the difficulties in the. way of proceeding by habeas corpus in a case like this, Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 189, 190; Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255, and notwithstanding the fact that the Validity of the statutes has been supposed to have been established heretofore. — It is not correct to say that the Amendment did not exist until its prohibition went into effect; in other words that there was no Amendment until January 16, 1920, although one had been ratified a year before. The moment that the Amendment was ratified it became effective as a law. The operation of its words a year later depended wholly upon what hád happened on or before January 16, 1919. Nothing happened after that date except the lapse of time. This distinction is maintained by the language of the Amendment, which is not that the Amendment shall go into operation a year after it is ratified but that the acts against which it is directed are prohibited after that time, although we attach no other importance to the precise form of words used than that of showing an accurate instinct in those who drew it. Whichever form was used, the world had notice of it, and we apprehend that there would be little difficulty in holding void a contract made in July, 1919, and contemplating performance in disregard of the prohibition in July, 1920, Every dogmatic statement of the law is prophetic of what will happen in a certain event. There is no more reason why the Constitu-, tion should not give the warning for the next year than there is for its not giving it for the next moment. We have no doubt of the authority of Congress to pass the law. Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454. Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co., 187 U. S. 611, 615, 616. Indeed it would be going far to say that while the fate of the Amendment was uncertain Congress could not have passed a law in aid of it, conditioned upon the ratification taking place.

A shorter answer to the whole matter is that the grant of power to Congress is a present grant and that no reason has been suggested why the Constitution may not give Congress a present power to enact laws intended to carry out constitutional provisions for the future, when the time comes for them to take effect.

It is argued that the preliminary injunction was void for want .of the notice required by Equity Rule 73 and the Act of October 15, 1914, c. 323, § 17; 38 Stat. 730, 737. The statute provides that if it is made to appear. that the nuisance exists, a temporary injunction shall issue forthwith. § 22. In view of the drastic policy of the Amendment and the statute, we see no reason why the words should not be taken literally, to mean what they say. McFarland v. United States, 295 Fed. 648.

But if notice were required the injunction could not be disregarded as void. Howat v. Kansas, supra.

We think the case too clear for extended discussion, but it seemed worth while to say what we have said in explanation of our judgment, although we did not think it necessary to hear the other side.

Judgment affirmed.