In re Jacobs
2 N.Y. Crim. 539 (1885)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative act purporting to exercise the police power is unconstitutional if it arbitrarily interferes with personal liberty and private property without due process of law and has no real or substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare.
Facts:
- On May 14, 1884, Jacobs was arrested on a warrant for violating Chapter 272 of the Laws of 1884.
- Jacobs lived with his wife and two children in a tenement house in New York City.
- Three other families also resided in the same tenement house.
- The house had four floors, with seven rooms on each floor, and each floor was occupied by one family living independently and cooking in one of their rooms.
- At the time of his arrest, Jacobs was preparing tobacco and making cigars in one of his rooms.
- There was no smell of tobacco in any part of the house except the room where Jacobs was engaged in this work.
- Chapter 272 of the Laws of 1884 prohibited manufacturing cigars or preparing tobacco on any floor or part of a floor in any tenement house if that area was occupied as a home or residence, and applied only to cities with over 500,000 inhabitants, exempting first floors with cigar stores.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacobs was arrested on May 14, 1884, under a warrant issued by a police justice in New York City for violating Chapter 272 of the Laws of 1884.
- The police justice committed Jacobs for trial.
- Upon Jacobs' petition, a Justice of the Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus.
- After a hearing on the writ, the Supreme Court Justice made an order dismissing the writ and remanding Jacobs to prison.
- Jacobs appealed that order to the General Term of the Supreme Court (Jacobs was Appellant, the People/District Attorney were Appellee).
- The General Term reversed the order and discharged Jacobs from prison, ruling that the act under which he was arrested was unconstitutional and void.
- The district attorney, on behalf of the People, then appealed to the Court of Appeals (the People/District Attorney were Appellant, Jacobs was Appellee).
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 Chapter 272 of the Laws of 1884, which prohibits the manufacture of cigars and preparation of tobacco in tenement houses, constitute a constitutional exercise of legislative police power, or does it arbitrarily interfere with personal liberty and private property without due process of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Earle, J.
No, Chapter 272 of the Laws of 1884 is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power because it arbitrarily interferes with personal liberty and private property without due process of law under the mere guise of police regulation, as it bears no real or substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare. The court reasoned that the constitutional guarantee against deprivation of property without due process extends beyond physical taking to include the destruction of its value or essential attributes. Similarly, liberty includes the right to use one's faculties in lawful ways, live and work where one chooses, and pursue any lawful calling. While the police power is broad, it is not absolute and must operate within constitutional limits. The court asserted its authority to scrutinize legislative acts that ostensibly promote public health to ensure they genuinely relate to and are appropriate and adapted for that end, rather than merely invading personal rights or private property. Taking judicial notice of the nature of tobacco, the court found no evidence that cigar manufacturing in a tenement house was inherently dangerous to public health, especially since the odor was confined to Jacobs's room. The arbitrary distinctions in the law—such as exempting single-family homes, large factories, or first-floor stores in tenement houses, or permitting the activity if fewer than four families resided independently—demonstrated a lack of rational connection to public health and instead highlighted an arbitrary infringement on a lawful trade.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that significantly shaped the understanding of the state's police power and substantive due process in American jurisprudence. It established an early precedent for judicial review of the reasonableness of legislative enactments, asserting that courts must not simply defer to legislative declarations of public purpose but must independently ascertain if a law genuinely serves public health, safety, or welfare. The ruling reinforced the protection of economic liberty and property rights against arbitrary government interference, laying groundwork for future challenges to overly broad regulations. Its principles remain vital for understanding the limits of governmental authority and the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual constitutional freedoms.
