Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Cohens v. Virginia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1821 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawfederal statute constructioncorporate powersDistrict of Columbialottery ticketsstate penal lawsclear statementlocal powers

Facts

Congress empowered the Corporation of the City of Washington to authorize the drawing of lotteries for important city improvements, subject to a monetary cap and presidential approval of the object to be funded. The defendants relied on that act of Congress as a defense to a Virginia prosecution involving the sale of lottery tickets in Virginia. The Virginia court rejected the defense. The Supreme Court addressed only whether the congressional act authorized the Corporation to force or carry the sale of its lottery tickets into states where state law prohibited such sales.

Issue

Did the act of Congress empowering the Corporation of the City of Washington to authorize lotteries also authorize the sale of those lottery tickets in Virginia notwithstanding Virginia law prohibiting such sales? If not, the Court would not reach the constitutional question.

Rule

When Congress creates a municipal corporation for local objects and grants it power in general terms, that power is construed as local and limited by its subject unless Congress clearly indicates an intention to give the corporation's acts binding effect beyond its territorial limits. A federal statute will not be read to interfere with a state's penal laws aimed at internal government unless that intention is clearly and unequivocally expressed or the statute makes that construction inevitable.

🔒

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 charters the municipal corporation of the Federal District City of Franklin and gives its council power to license public concerts to raise funds for street repairs within the city. The statute says nothing about performances outside the city. Lena Ortiz obtains a city license and is prosecuted in Ohio under an Ohio criminal statute forbidding unlicensed paid concerts in public parks after she stages one in Cleveland.

Lena argues that the congressional charter authorized her concert in Ohio and bars the prosecution. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority rule is one of narrow construction. When Congress creates a municipal corporation for local objects and grants powers in general terms, those powers are limited by the local subject unless the statute contains words showing Congress meant the acts to operate beyond the corporation's territorial limits. Nothing here indicates such an intention, so the city license does not impliedly displace Ohio's penal law.