Lambert v. Yellowley

Last updated
Lambert v. Yellowley
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 30, 1926
Decided November 29, 1926
Full case nameSamuel W. Lambert vs. Edward C. Yellowley, et al.
Citations272 U.S. 581 ( more )
47 S. Ct. 210; 71 L. Ed. 422
Case history
Prior291 F. 640 (S.D.N.Y. 1923); reversed, 4 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1924).
Holding
The right to practice medicine does not trump the police power of States, or the power of Congress to enact laws that are "necessary and proper" for upholding the intent of the 18th Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland  · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford  · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
MajorityBrandeis, joined by Taft, Holmes, Sanford, Van Devanter
DissentSutherland, McReynolds, Butler, Stone
Laws applied
National Prohibition Act, Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Const.

Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Contents

Background

The Eighteenth Amendment, which made illegal in the United States the production, transport and sale of alcohol, went into effect on January 17, 1920. Accompanying legislation under the National Prohibition Act stated that physicians with appropriate permits could prescribe alcoholic medicines, but not more than once every 10 days to the same patient. [1]

In November 1922, Lambert brought suit in federal court to prevent Yellowley and other officials from interfering with him prescribing liquors to his patients in excess of those allowed under the act, claiming that prescribing liquors more frequently than once every 10 days was sometimes necessary for treating patients, and that the ability to do so was a part of his rights as a physician. [2]

In May 1923, the district court issued an injunction for Lambert, which was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in December 1924. [3] Lambert's appeal contended that in passing the disputed provision of the National Prohibition Act, Congress exceeded the authority granted by the Eighteenth Amendment, and that the provision was thus unconstitutional.

Decision

In ruling against Lambert, the court rejected his claim that the prescription of medicinal liquors was unrelated to the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment, stating that such prescriptions opened the door to "frauds, subterfuges and artifices" that hampered enforcement of the amendment.

The court also rejected a right to practice medicine that trumped police power in the United States, [4] or the right of Congress to enact laws that are necessary and proper for fulfilling the intent of the 18th Amendment:

There is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States, and also to the power of Congress to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the Eighteenth Amendment. When the United States exerts any of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, no valid objection can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by some or all of the incidents which attend the exercise by a State of its police power. The Eighteenth Amendment confers upon the Federal Government the power to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. Under it, as under the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, Congress has power to enforce prohibition "by appropriate legislation."

Four Justices dissented, in an opinion authored by Justice George Sutherland. The dissent focused on the wording of the 18th Amendment, which provided that "... the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors ... for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." In his view, the amendment left any regulation of liquor sales other than "for beverage purposes" to state law. [5]

Later history

The ruling was later cited in cases upholding state prohibitions on birth control, such as in Commonwealth v. Gardner (1938), where the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Massachusetts' complete ban on contraceptives, rejecting claims that physicians should be able to prescribe contraceptives to patients in order to save their lives or protect their well-being, [6] and declaring that physicians should not in any way be excepted from enforcement of the statute. [7]

Connecticut's contraception ban was similarly upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court in State v. Nelson (1940), which also cited Lambert in its ruling. As in Massachusetts, the court recalled Lambert in saying such laws were "a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to preserve and protect public morals." [8]

More recently, Lambert has been cited in Supreme Court cases by justices arguing for the legitimacy of state laws banning late term abortions. [9]

Related Research Articles

Article Two of the United States Constitution Portion of the US Constitution regarding the executive branch

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1919 amendment establishing prohibition of alcohol

The Eighteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution established the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. The amendment was proposed by Congress on December 18, 1917, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on January 16, 1919. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933. It is the only amendment to be repealed.

Volstead Act Act to prohibit intoxicating beverages in the USA

The National Prohibition Act, known informally as the Volstead Act, was enacted to carry out the intent of the 18th Amendment, which established prohibition in the United States. The Anti-Saloon League's Wayne Wheeler conceived and drafted the bill, which was named after Andrew Volstead, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who managed the legislation.

Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution 1933 amendment repealing 18th amendment – prohibition of alcohol

The Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide prohibition on alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed by the 72nd Congress on February 20, 1933, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment, as well as being the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

Randy Barnett American legal scholar (born 1952)

Randy Evan Barnett is an American legal scholar and lawyer. He serves as the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. After graduating from Northwestern University and Harvard Law School, he tried many felony cases as a prosecutor in the Cook County States’ Attorney's Office in Chicago. A recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship in Constitutional Studies and the Bradley Prize, Barnett has been a visiting professor at Penn, Northwestern and Harvard Law School.

Necessary and Proper Clause

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a Supreme Court case which held that the United States Congress could set voting age requirements for federal elections but not for local or state elections. The case also upheld Congress's nationwide prohibition on literacy tests and similar "tests or devices" used as voting qualifications as defined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The repeal of Prohibition in the United States was accomplished with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 5, 1933.

United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), was a case before the United States Supreme Court that concerned liquor laws and taxation. Congress placed a tax on liquor dealers who violate state liquor laws. The Court struck down the relevant portion of the Revenue Act of 1926 as an attempt to punish a state violation through taxation.

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), was a case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved a New York state law requiring reporting and storage of information concerning all Schedule II drug prescriptions. Physicians were required to report the name of the prescribing physician; the dispensing pharmacy; the drug and dosage; and the name, address, and age of the patient. This information was then stored by the New York Department of State.

Webb–Kenyon Act

The Webb–Kenyon Act was a 1913 law of the United States that regulated the interstate transport of alcoholic beverages. It was meant to provide federal support for the prohibition efforts of individual states in the face of charges that state regulation of alcohol usurped the federal government's exclusive constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of warrantless search.

Prohibition in the United States Constitutional ban on alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933

Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933.

Alcohol prohibition in India

Alcohol prohibition in India is in force in the states of Bihar, Gujarat, Mizoram, and Nagaland. All other Indian states and union territories permit the sale of alcohol.

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws developed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in 1934 due to the lack of restrictions in the Harrison Act of 1914. The Harrison Act was a revenue-producing act and, while it provided penalties for violations, it did not give authority to the states to exercise police power regarding either seizure of drugs used in illicit trade or punishment of those responsible.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927), is a significant decision by the United States Supreme Court protecting prohibition laws. The Court held 1) the Coast Guard may seize, board, and search vessels beyond the U.S. territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast if probable cause exists to believe that the vessel and persons in it are violating U.S. revenue laws, and 2) the Coast Guard's use of searchlights to view contents of a vessel on the high seas does not constitute a search and thus does not warrant Fourth Amendment protections.

Medicinal Liquor Prescriptions Act of 1933

Medicinal Liquor Prescriptions Act of 1933 is a United States federal statute establishing prescription limitations for physicians possessing a permit to dispense medicinal liquor. The public law seek to abolish the use of the medicinal liquor prescription form introducing medicinal liquor revenue stamps as a substitution for official prescription blanks.

References

  1. ↑ Scheiber, Harry (1992). Federalism and the Judicial Mind: Essays on American Constitutional Law and Politics (1st ed.). Univ of California Inst of.
  2. ↑ Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926).
  3. ↑ Lambert v. Yellowley, 4F.2d915 (2d Cir.1924).
  4. ↑ Finkelman, Paul (2014). The Supreme Court: Controversies, Cases, and Characters from John Jay to John Roberts (1st ed.). ABC-CLIO.
  5. ↑ Lambert, 272 U.S. at 597 (Sutherland, J., dissenting).
  6. ↑ Lucas, Roy (15 May 2013). "Forgotten Supreme Court Abortion Cases: Drs. Hawker & Hurwitz in the Dock & Defrocked". Pepperdine Law Review. Retrieved 18 April 2015.
  7. ↑ "Commonwealth vs. Carolyn T. Gardner (1938)". law.justia.com. Retrieved 2015-04-18.[ permanent dead link ]
  8. ↑ Johnson, John (2001). Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2 (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  9. ↑ Stenberg v. Carhart , 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.