Pollock v. Williams
322 U.S. 4, 64 S. Ct. 792, 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1304 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that criminalizes obtaining money with a fraudulent promise to perform labor, and which makes the failure to perform that labor prima facie evidence of intent to defraud, violates the Thirteenth Amendment and the Antipeonage Act because the entire statutory scheme, including the evidentiary presumption, operates to compel involuntary servitude in payment of a debt.
Facts:
- On October 17, 1942, Pollock entered into a contract to perform labor for a corporation, J. V. O'Albora.
- Pursuant to the contract, Pollock obtained a $5.00 cash advance from J. V. O'Albora.
- Pollock subsequently failed to perform the labor he had promised.
- Pollock did not repay the $5.00 advance to the corporation.
- Pollock was an illiterate laborer who, upon his arrest, stated that he did not understand the nature of the charge against him and believed he was guilty simply because he owed money to his prior employer and had quit his job.
Procedural Posture:
- Pollock was arrested and charged in a Florida county court with fraudulently obtaining a $5 advance for labor he failed to perform.
- In the county court, Pollock entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to pay a $100 fine or serve 60 days in jail.
- Pollock filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida circuit court, a state trial court, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
- The circuit court granted the writ, found the statute unconstitutional, and ordered Pollock's release.
- The State of Florida (represented by Williams, the sheriff) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, reversed the circuit court, holding the substantive part of the law was constitutional and severable from the unconstitutional evidentiary presumption.
- Pollock appealed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida 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 a Florida statute that makes it a crime to procure money under a promise to perform labor and then fail to do so, and which deems the failure to perform prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent, violate the Thirteenth Amendment and the federal Antipeonage Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, the Florida statute violates the Thirteenth Amendment and the Antipeonage Act. The statute, in its entirety, is an unconstitutional mechanism for compelling involuntary servitude. The Court rejected Florida's argument that the substantive provision criminalizing fraud could be severed from the provision creating a prima facie presumption of guilt. The Court reasoned that the mere existence of the presumption provision has a coercive effect, pressuring defendants—especially poor, illiterate, and uncounseled individuals like Pollock—into pleading guilty regardless of their actual intent. Reviewing the history of similar statutes in cases like Bailey v. Alabama and Taylor v. Georgia, the Court concluded that their inevitable effect is to punish the failure to perform a labor contract, thereby using criminal sanctions to hold unwilling persons to labor. This practice is precisely the kind of peonage that the Thirteenth Amendment and the Antipeonage Act were designed to eliminate.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Reed
No, the substantive portion of the Florida statute is constitutional and should be upheld. While the prima facie evidence provision is unconstitutional, it is severable from the main part of the statute which punishes the fraudulent procurement of an advance. Since Pollock pleaded guilty, the unconstitutional presumption was never applied to him, and there is no evidence in the record that its existence coerced his plea. States have a legitimate power to punish fraud, and there is no constitutional reason why a state cannot make it a crime for a workman to fraudulently procure wages for which he has no intention of working. The Court should not invalidate an entire statute based on the hypothetical coercive effect of one part, especially when that part was not used in the case at hand.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the prohibition against peonage by invalidating not just the evidentiary presumption in a labor fraud statute, but the entire statutory scheme. The Court established that the mere existence of a coercive presumption taints the substantive offense, recognizing the practical, 'in terrorem' effect such laws have on vulnerable defendants. This ruling makes it much more difficult for states to maintain laws that functionally compel labor for debt, as they can no longer argue that the unconstitutional presumption is severable from the underlying crime when a defendant pleads guilty. The case stands as a powerful statement that the Court will look beyond the form of a statute to its practical effect in enforcing involuntary servitude.
