United States v. Doremus
249 U.S. 86, 39 S. Ct. 214, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2229 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute enacted under Congress's taxing power will be upheld, even if it has a regulatory effect on activities traditionally governed by state police power, so long as its provisions bear some reasonable relation to the collection of the tax.
Facts:
- Doremus was a physician who was properly registered and had paid the special annual tax required by the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act.
- Doremus sold five hundred tablets of heroin, a derivative of opium, to a man named Ameris.
- This sale was not conducted in pursuance of a written order on the official form furnished by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as required by the Act.
- Doremus knew Ameris was addicted to heroin and was not dispensing the drug as part of his professional medical practice for the treatment of a disease.
- The heroin was sold to Ameris for the sole purpose of gratifying his addiction.
Procedural Posture:
- Doremus was indicted in the U.S. District Court for violating § 2 of the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act.
- Doremus challenged the indictment through a demurrer, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional.
- The District Court held that the section was unconstitutional because it was not a revenue measure and invaded the police powers of the states.
- The United States, the prosecution, directly appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States under the Criminal Appeals Act.
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 Section 2 of the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act, which regulates the distribution of certain narcotics through reporting and order form requirements, exceed Congress's constitutional taxing power and invade the police powers reserved to the States?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Day
No, the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act does not exceed Congress's constitutional power. The Act is a valid exercise of the taxing power because its regulatory provisions bear a reasonable relationship to the raising of revenue. The Court cannot invalidate legislation enacted under the taxing authority because of the supposed motives which induced it. The requirements for order forms and record-keeping tend to keep the traffic in narcotics 'aboveboard and subject to inspection,' which diminishes the opportunity for unauthorized persons to sell the drugs clandestinely and evade the tax. Therefore, since the provisions facilitate the collection of the revenue, the Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under Article I, § 8.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice
Yes, the Act exceeds Congress's constitutional power. The statute is not a genuine revenue measure but is instead a 'mere attempt by Congress to exert a power not delegated, that is, the reserved police power of the States.' The regulatory scheme is so extensive that the tax itself is merely a pretext for federal regulation of public health and morality, an area of governance reserved to the states.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the reach of federal regulatory power by validating the use of the taxing power as a means to achieve policy goals beyond simple revenue generation. By refusing to inquire into Congress's underlying motives, the Court established that as long as a statute is facially a tax measure and its provisions can be rationally linked to tax collection, it will be upheld. This 'pretext doctrine' allowed Congress to regulate a wide range of activities, such as drug distribution and firearms, that would otherwise fall under the exclusive police powers of the states. The case set a major precedent for the use of federal taxing and spending power to influence national policy.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Doremus