Dillon v. Gloss
Encyclopedia
Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held that if the United States Congress—when proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States—desires to place a deadline on that particular constitutional amendment's ratification, that Congress may indeed do precisely that and further that Congress' selection of a seven-year time constraint upon the ratification of what later became the Constitution's 18th Amendment
was not deemed to be unreasonable by the Court.
The Justices did not rule that Congress must impose a such deadline, merely that Congress may do so if Congress so desires and that Article V of the Constitution
is not violated by the imposition of such a time constraint.
, title 2, § 3, and was in custody under § 26. He was denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus
, and appealed the denial. Dillon claimed that the Eighteenth Amendment was inoperative since it had not been ratified within the time frame set by the congressional resolution proposing the amendment. Dillon also claimed that the law was not in effect at the time the crime was committed, nor at the time of his arrest.
—Taken from majority opinion.
The majority also addressed Dillon's second claim. The court stated that the amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, and went into effect one year later. Even though the Secretary of State
did not proclaim the ratification until January 29, 1919, only the date of the actual ratification mattered. The alleged crime and arrest took place on January 17, 1920, which meant that the amendment was in force at the time. The lower court's ruling was upheld.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that if the United States Congress—when proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States—desires to place a deadline on that particular constitutional amendment's ratification, that Congress may indeed do precisely that and further that Congress' selection of a seven-year time constraint upon the ratification of what later became the Constitution's 18th Amendment
Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eighteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution established Prohibition in the United States. The separate Volstead Act set down methods of enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment, and defined which "intoxicating liquors" were prohibited, and which were excluded from prohibition...
was not deemed to be unreasonable by the Court.
The Justices did not rule that Congress must impose a such deadline, merely that Congress may do so if Congress so desires and that Article V of the Constitution
Article Five of the United States Constitution
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment and subsequent ratification....
is not violated by the imposition of such a time constraint.
Background
Dillon had been arrested pursuant to the National Prohibition ActVolstead Act
The National Prohibition Act, known informally as the Volstead Act, was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States...
, title 2, § 3, and was in custody under § 26. He was denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus
Habeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
, and appealed the denial. Dillon claimed that the Eighteenth Amendment was inoperative since it had not been ratified within the time frame set by the congressional resolution proposing the amendment. Dillon also claimed that the law was not in effect at the time the crime was committed, nor at the time of his arrest.
Opinion
First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three-fourths of the States, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of States to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do.
—Taken from majority opinion.
The majority also addressed Dillon's second claim. The court stated that the amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, and went into effect one year later. Even though the Secretary of State
United States Secretary of State
The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence...
did not proclaim the ratification until January 29, 1919, only the date of the actual ratification mattered. The alleged crime and arrest took place on January 17, 1920, which meant that the amendment was in force at the time. The lower court's ruling was upheld.
See also
- Coleman v. MillerColeman v. MillerColeman v. Miller, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which clarified that if the Congress of the United States—when proposing for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to Article V thereof—chooses not to specify a deadline within...
- Equal Rights AmendmentEqual Rights AmendmentThe Equal Rights Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 256