Mugler v. Kansas
Encyclopedia
Mugler v. Kansas, , was an important United States Supreme Court
case in which the 8 to 1 majority opinion of Associate Justice
John Marshall Harlan
—and the lone, partial dissent by Associate Justice Stephen J. Field
—laid the foundation for the U.S. Supreme Court's later acceptance and defense during the Lochner era
of Justice Field's theory of economic substantive due process
under the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The companion case was Kansas v. Ziebold & Hagelin.
, the people of Kansas
amended their state constitution on November 2, 1880:
The Kansas Legislature
subsequently enacted an accompanying statute
on February 19, 1881 which provided that after May 1, 1881, any person who manufactured or aided in the manufacture of any liquor without an appropriate permit would be guilty of a misdemeanor
. First-time violators were to be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, or to be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than 20 nor more than 90 days.
On March 7, 1885, the legislature supplemented the statute by providing that all places where intoxicating liquors were manufactured, sold, bartered, or given away—or kept for sale, barter, or use—were a nuisance
and subject to abatement where a court judged them so. Courts adjudicating nuisance complaints were to sit in equity; further, the statute required the state only meet the burden of proving the defendant did not possess a permit, in which case the judge must declare the place complained of a nuisance. Offending owners of nuisances were to be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, or to be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than 30 nor more than 90 days.
in Salina, Kansas
. He spent $10,000 on the brewery’s construction and had obtained a corporate charter from the state allowing him to operate a brewery. It was completed in 1877 and used for the manufacture of intoxicating malt liquor, commonly known as beer
, up until May 1, 1881. Following the enactment of the statute, Mugler did not obtain a permit
for the manufacture or sale of alcohol
. Further, the brewery-specific design of Mugler's facility allegedly made it difficult to employ in other trades, subsequently dropping the value of the building to only $2,500.
Ziebold and Hagelin were operating a brewery in Atchison County, Kansas
.
Peter Mugler in the District Court of Saline County, Kansas
for violation of the statutes. The first indictment contained five counts alleging of Mugler having sold, bartered, or given away intoxicating liquors without a permit; a sixth count alleged his brewery was a public nuisance for being a place used in violation of the statute. The second indictment contained one count alleging Mugler of having manufactured intoxicating liquors without a permit.
The District Court found Mugler guilty and fined him $100 and court fees. It subsequently rejected the defendant's motions for a new trial and for an arrest of judgment. The Supreme Court of Kansas
affirmed on appeal.
In August 1886, authorities filed an information
in the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas
against Ziebold and Hagelin for operating a brewery. On defendant's motion, the case was removed to the U.S. Circuit Court under its equity jurisdiction. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill of information; the State of Kansas appealed.
Mugler's attorney posited two arguments:
The attorney for Ziebold and Hagelin echoed Mugler's two arguments, but posited an additional argument attacking the nuisance statute, which allowed for the destruction of all property used in keeping and maintaining the nuisance without a trial by jury, as a denial of due process
. The state, according to Ziebold and Hagelin's attorney, was using the nuisance provision out of order; instead of trying and convicting the defendants first, and then subsequently declaring the property a nuisance on the fact of their conviction and enabling authorities to destroy the liquors, the state was instead using the nuisance statutes to convict the defendants without trial. The statute removed the presumption of innocence
once the state had proved the owners of the alleged nuisance did not have a permit.
John Marshall Harlan
, writing for the majority, held that a state’s legislation prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within its jurisdiction does not infringe on any right or privilege secured by the Constitution of the United States. Addressing Mugler's first argument, the Court stated its belief that the principle requiring property holders not use their property so as to be injurious to the community was never incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the Court decided that it possessed the power to inquire into the intentions of the legislature behind police power regulations in order to settle disputes over the relatedness of the regulation to a state's use of the police power.
Turning to Mugler's second argument, the Court found the authority for the statute in this case strictly relied upon Kansas's police power
. Since the statute dealt with the health, safety, and morals of the population, the Court rejected Mugler's reliance on Pumpelly, distinguishing the Pumpelly case as a use solely of the state's power of eminent domain; the Court reasoned that a prohibition on the use of property, by valid legislation, for purposes of protecting the health and safety of the community cannot be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for public benefit. Since the legislation did not restrict the owners control, right to dispose, or ability to use for lawful purposes, no taking had occurred.
Further, the Court held that states cannot be burdened with the condition that they must compensate individual owners for incidental losses suffered as a result of a prohibition on the use of property. Additionally, property values which depreciate as a result of the state's exercise of the police power is different from taking property for public use. In one case a nuisance is abated and, in the other, property is taken away from the owner completely. If public safety requires certain action be taken by the legislature, lawmakers cannot be persuaded from discontinuing such activity because individuals will suffer incidental inconveniences.
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...
case in which the 8 to 1 majority opinion of Associate Justice
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States...
John Marshall Harlan
John Marshall Harlan
John Marshall Harlan was a Kentucky lawyer and politician who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. He is most notable as the lone dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases , and Plessy v...
—and the lone, partial dissent by Associate Justice Stephen J. Field
Stephen Johnson Field
Stephen Johnson Field was an American jurist. He was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court from May 20, 1863, to December 1, 1897...
—laid the foundation for the U.S. Supreme Court's later acceptance and defense during the Lochner era
Lochner era
The Lochner era is a period in American legal history in which the Supreme Court of the United States tended to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights, and takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York. The beginning of the period is usually...
of Justice Field's theory of economic substantive due process
Substantive due process
Substantive due process is one of the theories of law through which courts enforce limits on legislative and executive powers and authority...
under the Due Process Clause
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The companion case was Kansas v. Ziebold & Hagelin.
Statute
As part of the burgeoning temperance movementTemperance movement
A temperance movement is a social movement urging reduced use of alcoholic beverages. Temperance movements may criticize excessive alcohol use, promote complete abstinence , or pressure the government to enact anti-alcohol legislation or complete prohibition of alcohol.-Temperance movement by...
, the people of Kansas
Kansas
Kansas is a US state located in the Midwestern United States. It is named after the Kansas River which flows through it, which in turn was named after the Kansa Native American tribe, which inhabited the area. The tribe's name is often said to mean "people of the wind" or "people of the south...
amended their state constitution on November 2, 1880:
The Kansas Legislature
Kansas Legislature
The Kansas Legislature is the state legislature of the U.S. state of Kansas. It is a bicameral assembly, composed of the lower Kansas House of Representatives, composed of 125 Representatives, and the upper Kansas Senate, with 40 Senators...
subsequently enacted an accompanying statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
on February 19, 1881 which provided that after May 1, 1881, any person who manufactured or aided in the manufacture of any liquor without an appropriate permit would be guilty of a misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
A misdemeanor is a "lesser" criminal act in many common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished much less severely than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences...
. First-time violators were to be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, or to be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than 20 nor more than 90 days.
On March 7, 1885, the legislature supplemented the statute by providing that all places where intoxicating liquors were manufactured, sold, bartered, or given away—or kept for sale, barter, or use—were a nuisance
Nuisance
Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F...
and subject to abatement where a court judged them so. Courts adjudicating nuisance complaints were to sit in equity; further, the statute required the state only meet the burden of proving the defendant did not possess a permit, in which case the judge must declare the place complained of a nuisance. Offending owners of nuisances were to be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, or to be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than 30 nor more than 90 days.
Facts
In 1877, prior to the passage of the Kansas constitutional amendment and its accompanying statute, Peter Mugler had built a breweryBrewery
A brewery is a dedicated building for the making of beer, though beer can be made at home, and has been for much of beer's history. A company which makes beer is called either a brewery or a brewing company....
in Salina, Kansas
Salina, Kansas
Salina is a city in and the county seat of Saline County, Kansas, United States. As of the 2010 census, the city population was 47,707. Located in one of the world's largest wheat-producing areas, Salina is a regional trade center for north-central Kansas...
. He spent $10,000 on the brewery’s construction and had obtained a corporate charter from the state allowing him to operate a brewery. It was completed in 1877 and used for the manufacture of intoxicating malt liquor, commonly known as beer
Beer
Beer is the world's most widely consumed andprobably oldest alcoholic beverage; it is the third most popular drink overall, after water and tea. It is produced by the brewing and fermentation of sugars, mainly derived from malted cereal grains, most commonly malted barley and malted wheat...
, up until May 1, 1881. Following the enactment of the statute, Mugler did not obtain a permit
Permit
Permit may refer to:*Permit *Various legal licenses:*License*Work permit*Learner's permit*Permit to travel*Construction permit*Home Return Permit*One-way Permit*Permit is the common name for the Trachinotus falcatus, a type of Pompano....
for the manufacture or sale of alcohol
Alcohol
In chemistry, an alcohol is an organic compound in which the hydroxy functional group is bound to a carbon atom. In particular, this carbon center should be saturated, having single bonds to three other atoms....
. Further, the brewery-specific design of Mugler's facility allegedly made it difficult to employ in other trades, subsequently dropping the value of the building to only $2,500.
Ziebold and Hagelin were operating a brewery in Atchison County, Kansas
Atchison County, Kansas
Atchison County is a county located in Northeast Kansas, in the Central United States. As of the 2010 census, the county population was 16,924. Its county seat and most populous city is Atchison. The county is named in honor of David Rice Atchison, a United States Senator from Missouri...
.
Procedural History
In November 1881, authorities indictedIndictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
Peter Mugler in the District Court of Saline County, Kansas
Saline County, Kansas
Saline County is a county located in the U.S. state of Kansas. As of the 2010 census, the county population was 55,606...
for violation of the statutes. The first indictment contained five counts alleging of Mugler having sold, bartered, or given away intoxicating liquors without a permit; a sixth count alleged his brewery was a public nuisance for being a place used in violation of the statute. The second indictment contained one count alleging Mugler of having manufactured intoxicating liquors without a permit.
The District Court found Mugler guilty and fined him $100 and court fees. It subsequently rejected the defendant's motions for a new trial and for an arrest of judgment. The Supreme Court of Kansas
Kansas Supreme Court
The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the state of Kansas. Composed of seven justices, led by Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, the Court supervises the legal profession, administers over the judicial branch, and serves as the state court of last resort in the appeals...
affirmed on appeal.
In August 1886, authorities filed an information
Information (formal criminal charge)
Information is a formal criminal charge made without a grand jury indictment by a prosecutor in a document called an information.The term is used in Canada and various other common law jurisdictions, including a number of U.S...
in the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas
Atchison County, Kansas
Atchison County is a county located in Northeast Kansas, in the Central United States. As of the 2010 census, the county population was 16,924. Its county seat and most populous city is Atchison. The county is named in honor of David Rice Atchison, a United States Senator from Missouri...
against Ziebold and Hagelin for operating a brewery. On defendant's motion, the case was removed to the U.S. Circuit Court under its equity jurisdiction. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill of information; the State of Kansas appealed.
Issue
Does a state law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, subsequently rendering property used for the purposes described of little economic value, deprive the owner of that property in conflict with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?Mugler's attorney posited two arguments:
- A substantive due processSubstantive due processSubstantive due process is one of the theories of law through which courts enforce limits on legislative and executive powers and authority...
argument that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, Kansas lacked any authority to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for personal use, or for the purpose of export. - A takingsEminent domainEminent domain , compulsory purchase , resumption/compulsory acquisition , or expropriation is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent...
argument citing the devaluation of Mugler's property from $10,000 to $2,500 due to the statute, the building's brewery-specific design, and the difficulty of employing the building in other lawful trades. Mugler's attorney backed this argument with the holding of Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., which found the damming of a nearby river in order to improve navigation and had flooded the plaintiff's land, rendering it useless and without value, was a taking requiring compensation.
The attorney for Ziebold and Hagelin echoed Mugler's two arguments, but posited an additional argument attacking the nuisance statute, which allowed for the destruction of all property used in keeping and maintaining the nuisance without a trial by jury, as a denial of due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
. The state, according to Ziebold and Hagelin's attorney, was using the nuisance provision out of order; instead of trying and convicting the defendants first, and then subsequently declaring the property a nuisance on the fact of their conviction and enabling authorities to destroy the liquors, the state was instead using the nuisance statutes to convict the defendants without trial. The statute removed the presumption of innocence
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many...
once the state had proved the owners of the alleged nuisance did not have a permit.
Opinion
On December 5, 1887, by an 8 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas, affirming Mugler's convictions. Associate JusticeAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States...
John Marshall Harlan
John Marshall Harlan
John Marshall Harlan was a Kentucky lawyer and politician who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. He is most notable as the lone dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases , and Plessy v...
, writing for the majority, held that a state’s legislation prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within its jurisdiction does not infringe on any right or privilege secured by the Constitution of the United States. Addressing Mugler's first argument, the Court stated its belief that the principle requiring property holders not use their property so as to be injurious to the community was never incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the Court decided that it possessed the power to inquire into the intentions of the legislature behind police power regulations in order to settle disputes over the relatedness of the regulation to a state's use of the police power.
Turning to Mugler's second argument, the Court found the authority for the statute in this case strictly relied upon Kansas's police power
Police power
In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of their inhabitants...
. Since the statute dealt with the health, safety, and morals of the population, the Court rejected Mugler's reliance on Pumpelly, distinguishing the Pumpelly case as a use solely of the state's power of eminent domain; the Court reasoned that a prohibition on the use of property, by valid legislation, for purposes of protecting the health and safety of the community cannot be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for public benefit. Since the legislation did not restrict the owners control, right to dispose, or ability to use for lawful purposes, no taking had occurred.
Further, the Court held that states cannot be burdened with the condition that they must compensate individual owners for incidental losses suffered as a result of a prohibition on the use of property. Additionally, property values which depreciate as a result of the state's exercise of the police power is different from taking property for public use. In one case a nuisance is abated and, in the other, property is taken away from the owner completely. If public safety requires certain action be taken by the legislature, lawmakers cannot be persuaded from discontinuing such activity because individuals will suffer incidental inconveniences.
See also
- The Slaughterhouse Cases,
- Munn v. IllinoisMunn v. IllinoisMunn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with corporate rates and agriculture. The Munn case allowed states to regulate certain businesses within their borders, including railroads, and is commonly regarded as a milestone in the growth of federal government...
, - Allgeyer v. LouisianaAllgeyer v. LouisianaAllgeyer v. Louisiana, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous court struck down a Louisiana statute on grounds that it violated an individual's "liberty to contract." This was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word liberty in the Due Process...
, - Lochner v. New YorkLochner v. New YorkLochner vs. New York, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held a "liberty of contract" was implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved a New York law that limited the number of hours that a baker could work each day to ten, and limited the...
,