United States v. Mersky
1960 U.S. LEXIS 1887, 361 U.S. 431, 4 L. Ed. 2d 423 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Criminal liability cannot be imposed for violating an administrative regulation where the regulation is ambiguous and does not provide clear and unambiguous notice that the specific conduct is prohibited. When a regulation's purpose appears to be for administrative matters like tariff collection rather than implementing the statute's criminal sanctions for consumer information, any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the defendant under the rule of strict construction.
Facts:
- Mersky and his associates were dealers in musical instruments in the United States.
- They purchased 10 violins that were manufactured in the Soviet Zone of Germany.
- When they received the violins from the importers, each was marked with a label that read 'Germany/USSR Occupied.'
- Mersky et al. removed these original labels from the violins.
- They replaced the original labels with new ones inscribed 'Made in Germany.'
- After relabeling the instruments, they sold the violins to other dealers.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a criminal information against Mersky et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The defendants (Mersky et al.) moved to dismiss the information on the ground that it did not state an offense.
- The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the information, finding the underlying regulation was ambiguous and likely intended only for tariff purposes.
- The Government, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals determined that it lacked jurisdiction and certified the appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The Supreme Court postponed the question of its jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits.
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 removal of a 'Germany (Soviet occupied)' label from an imported article, as required by a Treasury regulation, and its replacement with a 'Made in Germany' label, constitute a criminal offense under the Tariff Act of 1930, when the regulation's text and context suggest its primary purpose is for tariff collection rather than informing the ultimate purchaser?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Clark
No. The removal of the labels did not violate the Tariff Act because the implementing regulation was too ambiguous to support a criminal prosecution. The Court first established its jurisdiction, holding that when a statute and its implementing regulations are so 'inextricably intertwined' that the construction of one necessarily involves the other, a dismissal based on the regulation's meaning constitutes a 'construction of the statute' for purposes of the Criminal Appeals Act. On the merits, the Court found that the Treasury Decision in question (T.D. 53210) was aimed at tariff collection, not protecting the ultimate purchaser. The regulation's caption and body focused on 'tariff status' and 'customs valuation,' and it lacked the specific language from the parent statute about conspicuous and permanent marking for the 'ultimate purchaser.' Applying the rule of strict construction in a criminal case, any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the defendant. Businessmen should not be left to guess the meaning of regulations, and unclarity alone is sufficient to resolve doubts in their favor.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Court has jurisdiction, and I concur in the judgment. Jurisdiction is proper not only because the case involves construction of the statute, but also because the District Court's dismissal was a 'judgment sustaining a motion in bar.' The key test for a motion in bar is not its technical common-law form, but its effect: whether the judgment ends the cause and exculpates the defendant. Here, the dismissal barred further prosecution for the charged offense, so it was functionally a motion in bar, making a direct appeal to this Court appropriate.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
No, the Court does not have jurisdiction. A direct appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act is permitted only for the construction of a 'statute,' which does not include an administrative regulation. The legislative history of the Act shows that Congress was concerned with single judges invalidating or misconstruing formal congressional enactments, not agency rules. There is a significant practical difference between correcting an erroneous statutory construction and correcting a misinterpretation of a regulation, which an agency can often amend easily. Extending jurisdiction to cover regulations would needlessly and irrationally increase the Court's mandatory appellate docket.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No, the Court does not have jurisdiction. The District Court's decision was based entirely on the interpretation of Treasury regulations, not the Tariff Act itself. An administrative regulation is not a 'statute' within the meaning of the Criminal Appeals Act. Furthermore, the dismissal was not a 'motion in bar.' A motion in bar is a technical legal term referring to a plea that relies on new matter to bar prosecution, akin to confession and avoidance (e.g., statute of limitations or pardon). The motion here was equivalent to a general demurrer, which argues that the information fails to state an offense, and does not qualify as a motion in bar.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'rule of lenity,' a fundamental principle of criminal law requiring that ambiguous penal statutes and regulations be construed in favor of the defendant. It establishes that the government cannot secure a criminal conviction based on a regulation that fails to provide clear, unambiguous notice of what conduct is prohibited. The decision underscores the due process requirement of fair warning. Additionally, the jurisdictional holding broadened the scope of direct Supreme Court review under the Criminal Appeals Act by treating the interpretation of a regulation as a 'construction of the statute' when the two are 'inextricably intertwined,' ensuring uniform application of federal law in such instances.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Mersky