Dillon v. Gloss
1921 U.S. LEXIS 1612, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article V of the Constitution implicitly grants Congress the power to fix a definite and reasonable period for the ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment.
Facts:
- Congress proposed the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sought to prohibit intoxicating liquors.
- The congressional resolution proposing the amendment included a provision that it would be inoperative unless ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years.
- The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on January 16, 1919, within the seven-year period specified by Congress.
- Congress subsequently passed the National Prohibition Act to enforce the amendment.
- On January 17, 1920, the day after the Eighteenth Amendment and the National Prohibition Act went into effect, Dillon was arrested for transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of the Act.
- Dillon was subsequently taken into custody under the authority of the National Prohibition Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Dillon was taken into custody on a charge of violating the National Prohibition Act.
- Dillon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, seeking to be discharged from custody.
- The federal court of first instance denied Dillon's petition.
- Dillon appealed the denial of his petition to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article V of the Constitution grant Congress the power to fix a definite time period within which a proposed constitutional amendment must be ratified by the states to become effective?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
Yes. Congress has the power under Article V of the Constitution to fix a reasonable time limit for the ratification of a proposed amendment. Although Article V does not expressly grant this power, the power is reasonably implied from the nature of the amendment process. The Court reasoned that proposal and ratification are not unrelated acts but are succeeding steps in a single endeavor, implying they should not be widely separated in time. Furthermore, amendments are proposed when deemed necessary, suggesting they should be considered and disposed of promptly. The Court concluded that ratification must be sufficiently contemporaneous in three-fourths of the states to reflect the will of the people at a relatively same period, which ratification scattered over many years would not accomplish. Therefore, setting a reasonable time limit, such as seven years, is an incidental power of Congress's authority to designate the mode of ratification.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Congress's power over the constitutional amendment process by clarifying an open question under Article V. It establishes that proposed amendments are not open for ratification indefinitely, preventing the potential resurrection of long-dormant proposals from different historical eras. By affirming that ratification must be contemporaneous, the Court ensures that constitutional changes reflect a current national consensus. This ruling grants Congress a critical tool to manage the amendment process and avoid legal uncertainty about the status of unratified amendments.
