Mugler v. Kansas
123 U.S. 623 (1887) (1887)
Rule of Law:
A state's exercise of its police power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors to protect public health, morals, and safety is not a deprivation of property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment, even if it significantly diminishes the value of property used for that purpose before the prohibition was enacted.
Facts:
- Peter Mugler and the partnership of Ziebold & Hagelin each owned and operated breweries in Kansas, which were constructed for the specific purpose of manufacturing beer.
- The breweries were built and operating for several years when the manufacture and sale of beer was a lawful business in Kansas.
- In 1880, the people of Kansas adopted a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.
- To enforce the amendment, the Kansas legislature passed a statute in 1881, and a supplementary act in 1885, making it a misdemeanor to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquors without a permit.
- The 1885 act also declared any place where intoxicating liquors were illegally manufactured or sold to be a common nuisance subject to abatement.
- Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin continued to manufacture and sell beer after the new laws took effect, in defiance of the state prohibition.
- The enforcement of these prohibition statutes rendered the breweries and their machinery of little value, as they could not be easily repurposed.
Procedural Posture:
- In one set of cases, Peter Mugler was indicted in a Kansas state trial court on charges of selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors in violation of state law.
- Mugler was convicted and fined in the trial court.
- Mugler appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of Kansas, which affirmed the judgments.
- In a separate case, the State of Kansas filed a petition in a state court to have the brewery of Ziebold & Hagelin declared a common nuisance and abated.
- The defendants, Ziebold & Hagelin, removed the case to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas on the grounds that it involved a federal constitutional question.
- The federal Circuit Court denied the State's motion to remand the case to state court and, after a hearing, dismissed the State's suit.
- Mugler (as plaintiff in error) and the State of Kansas (as appellant) brought their respective cases to the Supreme Court of the United States for review.
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 a state law that prohibits the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, thereby diminishing the value of property used for that purpose prior to the law's enactment, deprive the property owner of liberty or property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No, a state law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors does not deprive a property owner of property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere with a state's police power to enact regulations that promote the health, peace, and morals of its people. A prohibition on the use of property for purposes declared by valid legislation to be injurious to the community cannot be deemed a 'taking' or an appropriation of property for public benefit that requires compensation. While the courts must ensure that a law enacted under the guise of police powers has a real and substantial relation to protecting public health, morals, or safety, the Kansas prohibition meets this standard, as the court recognizes the well-known social evils associated with the excessive use of alcohol. The state's power to abate places of illegal manufacture as public nuisances is a valid exercise of this authority and does not violate due process, as such proceedings are well-established in courts of equity.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Field
Yes, the provision of the Kansas law declaring a brewery a common nuisance and ordering the destruction of all liquors and property therein deprives the owner of property without due process of law. While the state may prohibit the use of the brewery for manufacturing, it cannot go further and order the destruction of the building or the property inside, such as manufactured liquor and utensils, which may have lawful uses. The power to abate a nuisance must be limited by necessity; the remedy is to stop the unlawful use, not to destroy the property itself. By commanding the destruction of property beyond what is necessary to stop the illegal activity, the legislature has crossed the line from regulation to unconstitutional confiscation.
Analysis:
Mugler v. Kansas is a landmark decision that affirmed the broad scope of state police power in the face of a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. It established that economic regulations intended to protect public welfare do not constitute a 'taking' of property requiring compensation, even if they severely reduce property values. This case drew a critical distinction between the power of eminent domain (which requires compensation) and the police power to regulate harmful uses of property (which does not). This principle became foundational for the modern regulatory state, though it would later be challenged during the Lochner era's focus on economic substantive due process.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"