Search Supreme Court Cases

UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U. S. 377 (1922)

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922)

United States v. Lanza

No. 39

Argued November 23, 1922

Decided December 11, 1922

260 U.S. 377


1. The second section of the Eighteenth Amendment, declaring "[t]he Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," means that power to take legislative measures to make the policy of the amendment effective shall exist in Congress in respect of the territorial limits of the United States, and that, at the same time, the like power of the several states within their territorial limits shall not cease to exist. P. 260 U. S. 381.

Page 260 U. S. 378

2. The Amendment did not displace or cut down state laws consistent with it. P. 260 U. S. 381.

3. The Amendment is not, properly speaking, the source of the state prohibitory power, but rather, its effect is to put an end to restrictions on the state's power arising from the federal Constitution, and to leave the state free to enact prohibition laws applying to all transactions within her limits. P. 260 U. S. 381.

4. When the same act is an offense against both state and federal governments, its prosecution and punishment by the latter, after prosecution and punishment by the former, is not double jeopardy within the Fifth Amendment. P. 260 U. S. 382.

5. In the absence of special provision by Congress to the contrary, conviction and punishment in a state court under a state law for making, transporting, and selling intoxicating liquors is not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States under the National Prohibition Law for the same acts. P. 260 U. S. 385.

268 F. 864 reversed.

Error to an order of the district court sustaining a special plea in bar and dismissing five counts of an indictment.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U. S. 377 (1922)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.