Dillon v. Gloss
"Dillon v. Gloss" is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the legality of the Eighteenth Amendment, which instituted Prohibition in the United States. The case involved defendant Dillon, who was convicted of transporting liquor in violation of this amendment. Dillon's defense centered on two main arguments: that Congress improperly included a ratification deadline for the amendment and that the law under which he was arrested was not yet enforceable since his arrest occurred less than one year after the amendment's proclamation, despite being more than a year post-ratification. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Willis Van Devanter, upheld the conviction, determining that the deadline for ratification was valid and that the crucial point was the adoption date of the amendment rather than its announcement. This case set a precedent for future constitutional amendments, which would also include ratification deadlines, leading to ongoing discussions around the amendment process, including controversies like those surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment. Understanding "Dillon v. Gloss" provides insight into the complexities of constitutional law and the enforcement of amendments in American legal history.
Dillon v. Gloss
Date: May 16, 1921
Citation: 256 U.S. 368
Issue: Constitutional amendment process
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of illegally transporting liquors, approving time limits for ratification of amendments and determining that their effective date would be based on ratification.
Justice Willis Van Devanter wrote the unanimous decision for the Supreme Court upholding the conviction of defendant Dillon for transporting liquors in violation of the Eighteenth Amendment. The defendant had challenged his conviction on grounds that Congress had for the first time added a time limit for ratification of the proposed amendment and that the law under which he had been arrested was not yet in force as his arrest occurred less than one year after the Eighteenth Amendment was proclaimed by the secretary of state (although more than one year after its ratification). The Court concluded the deadline for ratification was reasonably contemporaneous and that the adoption of the amendment and not its announcement was the critical issue in the effective starting date of the provision. Subsequent proposed amendments all carried deadlines for ratification. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment contained a deadline that Congress extended in a manner that aroused controversy.
