United States v. Constantine
Citations
- 296 U.S. 287
- 56 S. Ct. 223
- 80 L. Ed. 233
- 1935 U.S. LEXIS 577
- 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1137
- 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9655
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1935 United States Supreme Court case
United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), was a case before the United States Supreme Court that concerned liquor laws and taxation . Congress placed a tax on liquor dealers who violate state liquor laws. The Court struck down the relevant portion of the Revenue Act of 1926 as an attempt to punish a state violation through taxation.
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
A Prohibition era federal law required that sellers of alcohol obtain a federal excise license which costs $25 if the holder was in compliance with state law but $1,000 if they were not. The appellee had paid the lower fee but was found to be in violation of Alabama law by selling malt liquor in a Birmingham restaurant that exceeded the strength allowed by state law. The federal government then pursued Constantine for the $975 difference even though the violation occurred after the repeal of Prohibition .
Opinion of the court
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the court")
]
The court ruled that the primary purpose of the tax law was to enforce police powers not to raise revenue. Since the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment , the federal law was no longer enforceable.
Dissents
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Dissents")
]
Justice Cardozo, in an opinion joined by Justices Brandeis and Stone, dissented, arguing that Congress could have had any one of several non-punitive justifications for the statute.
Subsequent history
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: Subsequent history")
]
_National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius _ referenced the logic in this decision to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was a penalty or tax in terms of the Constitution. The Court held that it was a tax by "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application."
See also
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: See also")
]
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Works related to United States v. Constantine at Wikisource
- Text of United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&oldid=1351342369 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
United States v. Constantine
Add languages Add topic
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
Judges: Brandeis, Cardozo, Roberts, Stone
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.