Erlenbaugh v. United States
1972 U.S. LEXIS 2, 409 U.S. 239, 34 L. Ed. 2d 446 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An explicit exception in one statute cannot be implied into another related statute when the two statutes have different purposes, scopes, and requirements, even if they were enacted together to address the same general subject.
Facts:
- Petitioners operated illegal bookmaking businesses in Hammond, Indiana.
- These businesses relied heavily on a publication called the Illinois Sports News, a 'scratch sheet' containing detailed horse racing information.
- The Illinois Sports News was published in Chicago, Illinois.
- To ensure prompt daily delivery, petitioners arranged for copies of the publication to be transported from Chicago, Illinois, to Hammond, Indiana, via an early morning train on the Chicago, South Shore, & South Bend Railroad.
- Upon arrival at the Hammond train station, copies were picked up and distributed among the various bookmaking operations.
- Customers of the bookmaking establishments used the information from the Illinois Sports News to place their bets.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were charged in federal district court with violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952.
- Following five separate trials, all petitioners were convicted of various counts related to the statute.
- The petitioners appealed their convictions, and the cases were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions.
- The petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between the circuits on this issue.
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 the 'newspaper exception' of 18 U.S.C. § 1953, which exempts newspapers from prohibitions on transporting gambling paraphernalia, also apply to prosecutions under the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, for using an interstate facility to facilitate illegal gambling?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No. The newspaper exception found in § 1953 does not create an implied exception in the Travel Act, § 1952, because the two statutes are designed to combat criminal activity in fundamentally different ways. While petitioners argue that the statutes are in pari materia (on the same subject) and should be read as one, this canon of construction cannot be used to introduce an exception where none exists, especially when the statutes serve different functions. Section 1953 is narrow, targeting the interstate shipment of specific gambling materials, and its newspaper exception was created to protect innocent parties from unknowingly transporting such materials. In contrast, § 1952 is a broad statute targeting the use of interstate facilities with the specific intent to promote a wide range of unlawful activities. Because § 1952 requires criminal intent, the rationale for the innocent-carrier exception in § 1953 is absent. Importing the exception would substantially undermine the broad prohibitory scope intended by Congress for the Travel Act.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limited application of the in pari materia doctrine of statutory interpretation. It establishes that even when statutes are passed contemporaneously as part of a single legislative effort, their provisions are not automatically interchangeable. The Court emphasized that statutory purpose and structure are paramount, preventing defendants from creating loopholes by borrowing exceptions from narrower, more specific statutes to defeat charges under broader, intent-based ones. This holding reinforces the strength of the Travel Act as a versatile tool for federal prosecutors targeting organized crime that utilizes interstate commerce.
