Dillon v. Gloss

256 U.S. 368 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1921

Facts

The petitioner was in custody under the National Prohibition Act, charged with transporting intoxicating liquor. He sought release via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the Eighteenth Amendment, which the Act enforced, was invalid because the congressional resolution proposing it included a seven-year ratification deadline. Additionally, he contended that the provisions of the Act under which he was arrested had not yet gone into effect at the time of his alleged violation or arrest, which occurred on January 17, 1920.

Procedural history

This case came before the Supreme Court as an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, who was in custody under the National Prohibition Act, had sought to be discharged from that custody. The lower court's order denying his petition was the subject of this appeal.

Issue

The legal questions presented were whether the Eighteenth Amendment was invalid due to the seven-year ratification period set by Congress in its proposal, and whether the provisions of the National Prohibition Act were in effect at the time of the petitioner's alleged violation and arrest.

Holding

The Court held that the Eighteenth Amendment was valid, affirming Congress's power to set a reasonable time limit for ratification. It also held that the provisions of the National Prohibition Act were in effect at the time of the petitioner's alleged violation and arrest. Therefore, the order denying the petition for habeas corpus was affirmed.

Rule

Article V of the Constitution, governing amendments, implies that ratification must occur within a reasonable time after a proposal, as proposal and ratification are sequential steps in a single process. Congress has the power to fix a definite, reasonable period for ratification as a detail incident to its power to propose amendments. The seven-year period set for the Eighteenth Amendment was deemed reasonable. Furthermore, a constitutional amendment becomes effective upon the consummation of its ratification by three-fourths of the states, not upon its subsequent proclamation by the Secretary of State.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.