Skip to main content
· 12/9/1935

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

Jump to content

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&section=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&section=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&section=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&section=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&section=5 "Edit section: See also")
]

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Constantine&oldid=1351342369 "

Categories :

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 CourtListener

Sourced 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.