United States Reports

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Eighteenth Amendment did not invalidate state laws consistent with it, so state alcohol charges are just as valid as federal charges. The separate sovereigns doctrine means both the state and the federal government can file charges for the same conduct. This was the first time that the separate sovereigns doctrine was squarely upheld by the Supreme Court as an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. The decision thereby started the doctrine of regulatory taking. The Takings Clause originally applied only when the government physically seized or occupied property. Prior to 1922, American courts followed a clear rule: regulation of land was not a taking. Rather, it was simply an exercise of the government’s police power to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals. Pennsylvania Coal also established the diminution-of-value test, in contrast to other tests, such as the permanent physical occupations test of Loretto v.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as an improper attempt by Congress to penalize employers using child labor. The Court indicated that the tax imposed by the statute was actually a penalty in disguise. The Court later abandoned the philosophy underlying the Bailey case. For example, see United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953), overruled on other grounds, Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).

Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the legality of the Futures Trading Act of 1921. The law, approved August 24, 1921, by the U.S. Congress attempted to institute Federal regulation of grain futures contract trading by imposing a prohibitive tax on futures contracts traded on any market other than those that met the statute's requirements and were regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The court found it was an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Congress responded to the Court's decision by passing the Grain Futures Act in September 1922 based on the Commerce Clause. The Grain Futures Act was held to be constitutional by the Court in Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen (1923)

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to Major League Baseball.

Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that habeas corpus petitioners are entitled to a de novo judicial hearing to adjudicate claims that they are citizens of the United States.

Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922) is a set of court cases, all dealing with water distribution from the Laramie River. A petition for rehearing was granted, which revised the original decision. A motion to dismiss was later denied.

Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U.S. 503 (1922), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that state governments did not need to limit their worker's compensation programs to those in hazardous industries, allowing them to instead target medium and large employers.

Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a general citizen, in a state that already had women's suffrage, lacked standing to challenge the validity of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. A companion case, Leser v. Garnett, upheld the ratification.

Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Nineteenth Amendment was constitutional.

Levinson v. United States, 258 U.S. 198 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court decision governing the sale by the United States Navy of the yacht USS Wadena. The court held that the government acted within its authority in selling the yacht to someone who was not actually the highest bidder, and was therefore bound by the sale even after the higher bid was discovered. The case is one of a line of cases that established that the federal government can be bound by the apparent authority of its agents. The Navy had used the Wadena in World War I and auctioned it off after the war ended. Levinson and Johnson both submitted bids. Johnson's was the higher bid, but his bid was lost, inadvertently assigned to the similarly-spelled USS Wandena, which was also being sold.

United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268 (1922), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited liability for landowners regarding injuries to child trespassers.

United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Harrison Narcotics Act did not require a mens rea element and was thus a strict liability crime.

Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to territories not incorporated into the union. It originated when Jesús M. Balzac was prosecuted for criminal libel in a district court of Puerto Rico. Balzac declared that his rights had been violated under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as he was denied a trial by jury since the code of criminal procedure of Puerto Rico did not grant a jury trial in misdemeanor cases. In the appeal, the U.S.

United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 9 and 10, 1922, and decided a month later on April 17. The case involved a Fifth Amendment rights issue centering on whether or not hard labor was an infamous punishment (thus triggering the necessity of a grand jury indictment) or whether imprisonment in a penitentiary was a necessity for punishment to be considered infamous. The majority opinion also included the court's contention for continued support of the findings of a previously held case, Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896). Lawyers for the United States argued that Wong Wing was improperly applied in the Moreland case, and had been modified or overruled by subsequent cases.

United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156 (1921), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that shares in a subsidiary corporation issued to stockholders in the parent corporation were taxable as income.

American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that picketing by more the one person at an entrance or exit to a struck business was not protected by the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. The court said that it was inherently a form of intimidation no matter how orderly the picket was. This case was later superseded by cases like Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), which held that picketing was protected under free speech and the First Amendment.

Bank of Minden v. Clement, 256 U.S. 126 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that states may not retroactively render valid contracts invalid via statute.

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld a temporary rent control law in the District of Columbia. It set a precedent in American law that government can regulate housing conditions during times of emergency to maintain or improve living conditions. Three years later, the rental property statute upheld in the case reached the Court for a second review. In Chastleton Corp v. Sinclair, despite the language being the same, the statute was unanimously struck down in a decision where the Court held that the emergency necessitating the measure had passed, and that which "justified interference with ordinarily existing property rights as of 1919 had come to an end by 1922."

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Constitution did not grant the United States Congress the authority to regulate political party primaries or nomination processes. The court struck down 1911 amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act which placed spending limits on candidate and political election committee spending in primaries or other nomination processes for federal office.

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.

Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress, when proposing a constitutional amendment under the authority given to it by Article V of the Constitution, may fix a definite period for its ratification, and further, that a seven-year period, such as that fixed by Congress in the resolution proposing the Eighteenth Amendment, is reasonable. Additionally, the Court, upon taking judicial notice that the Eighteenth Amendment became a part of the Constitution on January 16, 1919, when its ratification in the state legislatures was consummated, held that the National Prohibition Act, known informally as the Volstead Act, entered into force on January 16, 1920.

Yee Won v. White, 256 U.S. 399 (1921), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court affirmed the prior Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Yee Won, a Chinese laundryman in San Francisco, was considered a laborer and not a merchant, thus denying his wife and children entry into the United States from China.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case that helped define the range and scope of federal question jurisdiction in state corporate law matters. The case dealt with whether or not a district court had the power to uphold the constitutional validity of the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916.

Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court unanimously held that the government may not seize evidence by use of stealth or social trickery. The case expanded on Boyd v. United States to establish the now-defunct mere evidence rule, which stated that the government may not seize property solely useful as evidence.

Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction for a class action, only the class representative must be diverse from all of the defendants.

Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921), was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the United States Postmaster General's power to revoke second-class mail privileges (the type of mail most newspapers and magazines qualify as) under the Espionage Act of 1917. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the owners of the Milwaukee Leader, a socialist daily newspaper in Milwaukee, Wisconsin due to Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson's revocation of the Leader's second-class mailing privileges on the grounds of past anti-war articles it had published. The court ruled 7–2 in favor of the federal government, with Justice Clarke delivering the majority opinion while Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. dissented.

Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which examined the labor provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act and reaffirmed the prior ruling in Loewe v. Lawlor that a secondary boycott was an illegal restraint on trade. The decision authorized courts to issue injunctions to block this practice, and any other tactics used by labor unions that were deemed unlawful restraints on trade.

United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), was an 8-to-1 landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that held that the Constitution alone does not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, even if moving abductees across state lines on federally-regulated railroads at the behest of local law enforcement officials, and only the states have the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful violation of another's freedom of movement. The case was a landmark interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and contains a classic legal statement of the right to travel which continues to undergird American jurisprudence.

Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325, was a case heard and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1920. The case concerned the right to freedom of speech. The Court held that while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the States, Minnesota's sedition act could stand.

Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may tax the income received by a resident as the beneficiary of a trust that is administered by the resident of another state.

United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U.S. 113 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that changes to the statute during the appeals process made the lawsuit moot.

Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case coming out of the state of Ohio. It challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the state constitution allowing the state legislature's ratification of federal constitutional amendments to be challenged by a petition signed by six percent of Ohio voters. This would then bring the issue to referendum. In the case of Ohio and the 18th Amendment, the legislature ratified the amendment and, before the ninety-day waiting period had passed, the Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, declared the 18th Amendment to be in effect.

Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state's creation of a public welfare program is not reviewable by the Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings: A pro rata stock dividend where a shareholder received no actual cash or other property and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend by the shareholder was not income to the shareholder under the Sixteenth Amendment. An income tax that was imposed by the Revenue Act of 1916 on such a dividend was unconstitutional even if the dividend indirectly represented accrued earnings of the corporation.

Manners v. Morosco, 252 U.S. 317 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case with two principal holdings. First, the copyright transfer contract in question was not limited to five years because the agreement dealt in minimum requirements. Secondly, the transfer of the copyright for the production of a play on stage did not grant the ability to make a motion picture based on the play. However, a grant of exclusivity implies a negative guarantee that the original creator will not do anything that may adversely affect that exclusivity, meaning the author forfeited their own ability to authorize a motion picture production. The Court enjoined both parties from making a film version. The case concerned Peg o' My Heart by J. Hartley Manners.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law under the United States Constitution. The case centered on the constitutionality of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which prohibited the killing, capturing, and selling of certain migratory birds pursuant to a treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512 (1920), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which Silverthorne had attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., was that any evidence obtained, even indirectly, from an illegal search was inadmissible in court. He reasoned that otherwise, police would have an incentive to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to obtain derivatives of the illegally obtained evidence. This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Chief Justice Edward Douglass White and Associate Justice Mahlon Pitney dissented without a written opinion.

United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is a United States antitrust law case in which the United States Supreme Court noted that a company has the power to decide with whom to do business. Per the Colgate Doctrine, a company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws. This case created an exception to vertical price restraints in vertical agreements. According to the ruling, resale price maintenance is generally illegal per se, but if a supplier merely says it will not deal with resellers that charge less than the supplier's stipulated price, the supplier need not deal with such a retailer. This is a narrow exception, as companies are still prohibited from threatening or warning price-cutters.

Arizona Employers' Liability Cases, 250 U.S. 400 (1919), was a collection of United States Supreme Court companion cases in which the court held that workers' compensation laws do not violate the employer's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the criminal arrests of several defendants under the Sedition Act of 1918, which was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. The law made it a criminal offense to criticize the production of war materiel with intent to hinder the progress of American military efforts. The defendants had been arrested in 1919 for printing and distributing anti-war leaflets in New York City. After their conviction under the Sedition Act, they appealed on free speech grounds. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions under the clear and present danger standard, which allowed the suppression of certain types of speech in the public interest.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck and other defendants, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights.

United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), was a decision of the US Supreme Court upholding the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act as a valid use of a federal power under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prescriptions of narcotics for maintenance treatment was not within the discretion of physicians and thus not privileged under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U.S. 100 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that penalties awarded "in lieu of actual damages and profits" cannot be less than $250 for each case of copyright infringement.

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the conviction of a newspaperman for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 in connection with criticism of U.S. involvement in foreign wars. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court found that this criticism constituted the "willful obstruction" of America's recruitment efforts and was not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As in Schenck v. United States, also decided in 1919, the speech might have been protected were the country not at war.

Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision, relevant for US labor law and constitutional law, that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917.

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that congress's power to override a presidential veto requires only two-thirds of a quorum in each house to support it, not two-thirds of all the members of each house.