Today in Supreme Court History: January 16, 1919

1/16/1919: The 18th Amendment is ratified.

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1919, prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages, marking the beginning of Prohibition in the United States.

Glad we repealed this one. Whew! 🙂

[SMP0328]

It's interesting that in the Prohibitionists' zeal they didn't include mere possession as part of the 18th Amendment. If a person was walking in public with containers of alcohol in a brown paper bag, did that count as "transportation of alcoholic beverages"?

[Frank Drackman]

It usually gets "transported" from the container to the stomach at some point.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The 18A was a misguided social experiment arising from some troubling problems, including the harm of alcohol to women's lives.

As with the "war on drugs," which also began in earnest around that time, prohibition is a flawed way to address such problems, including resulting is threats to civil liberties.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18A while leaving in place an ability to ban alcohol. That amendment was the only one ratified by state convention. The 21A power regarding regulation of alcohol does not supersede other constitutional provisions. For instance, liquor advertising still must meet First Amendment standards.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

At least the alcohol prohibitions went the Amendment route. Like saying Mussolini was a more benevolent dictator than Hitler.

[Bob from Ohio]

"harm of alcohol to women's lives"

World Will End Tomorrow: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What do you mean? Alcohol doesn't harm men at all, only women.

[Rubbish!]

And the gangsters smiled.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (decided January 16, 1967): police officers being questioned in connection with investigation of traffic ticket fixing enjoyed Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination (they were told that if they didn’t answer a question they would be fired; therefore these were coerced confessions)

German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U.S. 307 (decided January 16, 1911): no denial of Equal Protection by Alabama statute requiring any insurer belonging to a “tariff association” fixing rates of its members to pay to its insured an extra 25% on any insured loss; statute applied to any such insurer

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327 (decided January 16, 2002): Pole Attachment Act of 1978 (regulating rents for space on telephone poles) protects providers of cable TV, high-speed internet, and even wireless telecommunication

O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (decided January 16, 1974): striking down on Equal Protection grounds New York statute denying right of inmates awaiting trial or serving misdemeanor sentences (i.e., not felons, who can’t vote anyway) to register as absentee voters if jail is not in their county of residence

Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217 (decided January 16, 1996): relatives of passengers of plane shot down over Sea of Japan could not recover loss-of-society damages against airline; Warsaw Convention refers issue to domestic law, stipulated to be American law, and Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. §30302, allowed only pecuniary damages (statute has since been amended)

[A Japanese Student]

Yonaiyama's Case (Grand Bench, decided January 16, 1953): Under Administrative Litigations Act of 1948, the Prime Minister was authorized to veto certain injunctions (here, enjoining Mr. Yonaiyama's expulsion from prefectural assembly). Court rules that veto must be made before the judge issues injunction. (the present statute, ALA of 1962, allows veto after injunctions were issued)

Internet Dating Website Case (First Petty Bench, decided January 16, 2014): 2008 law banned minor's use of dating websites, and required all dating websites to register with the police (though no permit required); Court concludes the law imposes content-based regulation, but upholds it as "necessary and proper to achieving legitimate ends", because it does not restrict content by the provider or adult user, and registration furthers audit (Free-speech cases are decided under that test; like the Necessary and Proper Clause, almost everything gets upheld.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

How can someone veto something before it happens?

[A Japanese Student]

The Government presumably knows when a motion seeking injunction is docketed. Fortunately (?), time is no longer a concern - and Prime Minister Sato (Nobel Peace Prize laureate) could freely veto injunctions that would have permitted anti-Vietnam War protests. The law fell into disuse since then, but is still on the books.