Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

In re Rahrer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1891 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseState Police PowerInterstate Liquor RegulationCommerce Clausedormant Commerce Clausestate police powerintoxicating liquors

Facts

Kansas had laws, enacted under its police power, forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors. Petitioner sold imported liquor in Kansas on August 9, 1890. Congress had enacted a law effective August 8, 1890 providing that imported liquors, upon arrival in a state, would be subject to that state's laws to the same extent as if produced there. Although the liquor had arrived in Kansas before the federal act was passed, the sale occurred after the act took effect.

Issue

May Congress constitutionally provide that intoxicating liquors transported into a state shall, upon arrival, become subject to that state's existing liquor laws as though they were domestic goods? If so, did Kansas's preexisting liquor law apply to petitioner's post-enactment sale of imported liquor without any need for reenactment by the state?

Rule

The states retain their ordinary police power, but may not, absent congressional action, enforce that power against articles still protected as subjects of interstate commerce. Congress, exercising its exclusive commerce power, may prescribe that designated subjects of interstate commerce lose that character upon arrival and become immediately subject to valid state laws, so long as Congress is making its own regulation rather than delegating its power or enlarging state power. When Congress removes the federal impediment, an otherwise valid existing state law may operate on imported goods without reenactment.

🔒

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.

Ohio has a longstanding statute prohibiting all retail sales of intoxicating liquor within the state. Congress later enacts a federal law providing that intoxicating liquors shipped from one state into another shall, upon arrival, be subject to the receiving state's laws as though produced there. Two days after the federal law takes effect, Lena Ortiz sells whiskey in Columbus that had been shipped from Kentucky and remains in its original bottles.

May Ohio constitutionally enforce its existing statute against Lena's sale?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress, exercising its exclusive power over interstate commerce, may prescribe that imported intoxicating liquors become subject to state law upon arrival. Once Congress removes the dormant Commerce Clause obstacle, an otherwise valid state police law may be enforced against post-enactment sales, even if the liquor remains in original packages. Reenactment by the state is unnecessary.