Champion v. Ames (The Lottery Case)

Supreme Court of the United States · 1903 · Constitutional Law

188 U.S. 321 (1903)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseInterstate Commercelottery ticketsprohibition as regulationplenary congressional powerpublic moralsindependent carriers

Facts

Congress enacted the Act of March 2, 1895, which made it an offense to cause lottery tickets to be carried from one State to another. The case involved lottery tickets issued by a foreign lottery company that offered cash prizes and had money on deposit in banks in the United States for prompt payment of prizes. The appellant argued that carrying lottery tickets interstate by an express company was not commerce among the States and therefore could not be prohibited by Congress. The Government argued that such carriage by interstate carriers was interstate commerce subject to congressional regulation.

Issue

Does the interstate carriage of lottery tickets by independent carriers constitute commerce among the several States within the meaning of the Commerce Clause, and if so, may Congress prohibit that carriage as a means of regulating interstate commerce?

Rule

Commerce among the several States includes not only traffic in ordinary commodities but also intercourse and the interstate carriage by independent carriers of items that are subjects of traffic and have market value. Lottery tickets are subjects of traffic and therefore subjects of commerce, and Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is plenary and may be exercised through prohibition when that is an appropriate means of regulation, subject only to constitutional limitations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts a statute making it a federal crime to cause "prize certificates" to be carried by package carriers from Nevada to Oregon. Each certificate is commonly bought and sold for cash and gives the holder a chance to receive a stated money payout from the issuer.

If Leo Martin is prosecuted for arranging such a shipment through Sierra Parcel Lines, what is the strongest argument that the statute is constitutional?

Explanation. The majority treated lottery tickets as subjects of traffic because they were bought and sold and had market value, even apart from ordinary commodities. It also held that carriage from one state to another by an independent carrier is interstate commerce, and that Congress's commerce power is plenary enough to prohibit that carriage as a mode of regulation. The rule does not depend on a general federal police power or on universal state-law enforceability. (Derived from Champion v. Ames (The Lottery Case) (1903).)