Cruickshank v. Bidwell

Citations

• 176 U.S. 73
• 20 S. Ct. 280
• 44 L. Ed. 377
• 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1721

Syllabus

<p>The mere fact that a law is unconstitutional does not entitle a: party to relief by injunction against proceedings in compliance therewith, but it must appear that he has no adequate remedy by the ordinary processes of the law, or that the case falls under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction; and in this case the averments of the complainants’ bill did not justify such an interference with executive action.</p> <p>The seizure of importations of teas purchased after the approval of the act of March 2, 1897, c. 368,- entitled “An act to prevent the importation of impure and unwholesome tea,” and the establishment of regulations and standards thereunder, publicly promulgated and known to complainants, because falling below the standards prescribed,. could inflict no other injury than what it must be assumed was anticipated, and the interposition of a court of equity cannot properly be invoked, under such circumstances, to detérmine in advance whether complainants, if they imported teas of that character, could escape the consequences on the ground of the invalidity of the law.</p>