Cases - 1919 term

Missouri v. Holland

Tue, 02 Mar 1920 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

609

Petitioner

Missouri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Holland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

252 U.S. 416 (1920)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1920

Decided

Monday, April 19, 1920

Facts of the Case

In December 1916, the United States and Great Britain entered into a treaty to protect a number of migratory birds in the U.S. and Canada. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 in order to facilitate enforcement of the treaty. When Ray P. Holland, the U.S. Game Warden, threatened to arrest citizens of Missouri for violating the Act, the state of Missouri challenged the treaty.

Question

Did the treaty infringe upon rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Holland, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; US Const. Amend 10

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the national interest in protecting the wildlife could be protected only by national action. The Court noted that the birds the government sought to protect had no permanent habitats within individual states and argued that "[b]ut for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with." The Court thus upheld the exercise of the treaty power and thus found no violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Abrams v. United States

Tue, 21 Oct 1919 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

316

Petitioner

Abrams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Argued

Tuesday, October 21, 1919

Decided

Monday, November 10, 1919

Facts of the Case

The defendants were convicted on the basis of two leaflets they printed and threw from windows of a building. One leaflet signed "revolutionists" denounced the sending of American troops to Russia. The second leaflet, written in Yiddish, denounced the war and US efforts to impede the Russian Revolution. The defendants were charged and convicted for inciting resistance to the war effort and for urging curtailment of production of essential war material. They were sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Question

Do the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments in this case violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

No and no. The act's amendments are constitutional and the defendants' convictions are affirmed. In Clarke's majority opinion, the leaflets are an appeal to violent revolution, a call for a general strike, and an attempt to curtail production of munitions. The leaflets had a tendency to encourage war resistance and to curtail war production. Holmes and Brandeis dissented on narrow ground: the necessary intent had not been shown. These views were to become a classic libertarian pronouncement.

Hawke v. Smith

jgoldman — Fri, 23 Apr 1920 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Ohio General Assembly

77 S High Street Columbus OH 43215

Columbus, OH 43215

United States

39° 57' 37.854" N, 83° 0' 1.1664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

582

Petitioner

George Hawke

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harvey Smith, Ohio Secretary of State

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

253 U.S. 221 (1920)

Argued

Friday, April 23, 1920

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1920

Advocates

J, Frank Hanly (argued the cause for the plaintiff in error)

Lawrence Maxwell (argued the cause for the defendant in error)

Facts of the Case

The Ohio General Assembly ratified the Eighteenth Amendment in January 1919, and was one of the thirty-six states that did so. The Ohio Constitution, in a 1918 amendment, provided that amendments to the United States Constitution would be subject to a statewide referendum after ratification by the General Assembly. Consistent with this requirement, the Ohio Secretary of State, Harvey Smith, began to print and issue ballots for the referendum. George Hawke challenged the validity of amendment to the Ohio Constitution and sought to have Smith stop the issuing of ballots. He alleged that the Ohio amendment conflicted with Article Five of the United States Constitution, which specified that amendments would be ratified by state legislatures. The Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County ruled against him. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals of Franklin County and the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Question

Did Ohio's 1918 amendment providing that amendments to the United States Constitution should be subject to a referendum conflict with Article Five of the United States Constitution?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio and ruled that Ohio's referendum provision conflicted with Article Five. In an opinion written by Justice William R. Day, the Court held that Article Five's ratification requirement was "limited to two methods, by action of the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, or conventions in a like number of States." The term "legislatures" in Article Five referred to a "representative body which made the laws of the people," which is precisely what the Ohio General Assembly was set to be in the Ohio Constitution. Though the Ohio Constitution did grant some legislative power to the people through referendums, the "ratification by a State of a constitution amendment is not an act of legislation within the proper sense," but instead an "expression of the assent of the State to a proposed amendment." Article Five specified that this assent could only be provided by a legislature or a convention, not a referendum. Therefore, Ohio's referendum requirement was unconstitutional.