The Eighteenth Amendment and National Prohibition, Part 6: Supreme Court Cases

The Eighteenth Amendment and National Prohibition, Part 6: Supreme Court Cases

Legal Sidebari

The Eighteenth Amendment and National
Prohibition, Part 6: Supreme Court Cases
June 26, 2023
This Legal Sidebar post is the sixth in a seven-part series that discusses the Eighteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. Prior to its repeal, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of “intoxicating liquors” for “beverage purposes” within the United States. Section 2 of the
Amendment granted Congress and the state legislatures “concurrent power” to enforce nationwide
Prohibition by enacting “appropriate legislation.” The Eighteenth Amendment was partly a response to the
Supreme Court’s pre-Prohibition Era Commerce Clause jurisprudence, which limited the federal and state
governments’ power over the liquor traffic. As such, the Eighteenth Amendment’s history provides insight
into the judicial evolution of the Commerce Clause, which operates as both a positive grant of legislative
power to Congress and a limit on state authority to regulate commerce. Additional information on this
topic will be published in the Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S.
Constitution.
The Eighteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court
Prohibition took effect throughout the United States on January 17, 1920, which was one year after the
states ratified the Eighteenth Amendment. Beginning with the consolidated National Prohibition Cases in
1920, the Supreme Court outlined the Eighteenth Amendment’s scope and the federal and state
governments’ “concurrent” powers to enforce it. The Court also confronted questions about whether the
circumstances of the Eighteenth Amendment’s proposal and ratification violated the requirements of
Article V of the Constitution. The Court rejected these Article V challenges, determining that the
Amendment had “become a part of the Constitution” and was to “be respected and given effect the same
as other provisions of that instrument.”
Scope of the Eighteenth Amendment'’s Prohibition
A few months after Prohibition took effect, the Supreme Court confirmed its sweeping scope. In the
National Prohibition Cases, the Court upheld the Eighteenth Amendment and provisions of the Volstead
Act against various legal challenges. The Court determined that Section 1 of the Amendment, which
barred the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol for beverage purposes, established Prohibition
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10990
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
throughout the “entire territorial limits of the United States.” The Amendment’s prohibitions applied to
interstate, intrastate, and foreign transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
In addition to possessing a broad territorial and transactional scope, the Eighteenth Amendment bound
both private entities and government actors, including Congress, the state legislatures, federal and state
courts, and public officers. Section 1’s prohibitions were self-executing and invalidated any legislative
act—by Congress, the states, or territorial assemblies—that authorized the use of alcohol contrary to
Prohibition. Nonetheless, the Eighteenth Amendment did not establish any mechanism for its
enforcement but instead relied on Congress and the states to implement its commands.
Federal and State Enforcement Powers
Despite its broad scope, the Eighteenth Amendment did not “prescribe any penalties, forfeitures, or mode
of enforcement.” Instead, Section 2 of the Amendment authorized Congress and the state legislatures to
enact legislation to implement Prohibition. To enforce Prohibition nationwide and regulate beverage and
non-beverage uses of alcohol, Congress enacted the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919.
The Supreme Court interpreted the scope of Congress’s power to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment in
several cases, applying a deferential standard of review to federal enforcement legislation. For instance,
the Court determined that Congress had reasonably exercised its enforcement power by enacting
controversial provisions of the Volstead Act prohibiting traffic in beverage “liquors” containing 0.5%
alcohol by volume, which included beer and light wines.
The Court also confronted questions about the “concurrent power” of Congress and the states to enforce
Prohibition under Section 2 of the Eighteenth Amendment. The Court determined that “concurrent
power” did not mean “joint power,” and thus federal enforcement legislation could become effective
without the states’ approval. According to the Court, the Eighteenth Amendment also did not neatly
divide federal and state power to enforce Prohibition along the lines separating interstate from intrastate
commerce. Consequently, the federal government could enforce Prohibition against intrastate activities
involving alcoholic beverages, such as their manufacture and sale. In addition, state legislatures could
restrict the importation of alcoholic beverages without violating the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine.
The Supreme Court’s Eighteenth Amendment jurisprudence thus confirmed the states’ powers to augment
federal enforcement efforts. However, state laws that authorized conduct prohibited under the Eighteenth
Amendment or other federal law were preempted.
Click here to continue to Part 7.

Author Information

Brandon J. Murrill

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer

Congressional Research Service
3

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10990 · VERSION 1 · NEW