Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Leisy v. Hardin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1890 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseDormant Commerce ClauseState Police PowerOriginal Package DoctrineCommerce Clauseinterstate commercedormant commerce clause

Facts

The plaintiffs in error were citizens of Illinois who imported beer into Iowa and sold it there in the original packages. They were not pharmacists, were not citizens of Iowa, and had no permit under Iowa's statute. Iowa's law, as amended, allowed the sale of intoxicating liquors only for limited purposes and only by certain permitted Iowa citizens, which effectively barred these importers' sales. Under Bowman, the Court treated the importation of the beer into Iowa as lawful, and the dispute concerned whether Iowa could prevent its sale in original packages before the goods became part of the common mass of property in the state.

Issue

May a state, without congressional permission, forbid a nonresident importer from selling intoxicating liquor imported from another state in the original packages after importation but before the goods have become mingled with the general mass of property in the state? More broadly, does such a prohibition amount to an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce?

Rule

Interstate commerce in commodities is national in character and, where the subject requires a uniform system, the power to regulate it is exclusive in Congress. Therefore, when Congress has not authorized state regulation, interstate commerce is to remain free and untrammeled, and a state may not, by seizure or other prohibition, interfere with the importation or sale by the importer of articles of commerce while they remain in original packages and have not yet become mixed with the general mass of property within the state. Only after importation is completed in the sense that the goods have lost their original-package status and become part of the state's general property may ordinary state control attach, except that a state may take appropriate measures against articles directly dangerous in themselves.

🔒

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.

Nora Baines, a merchant from Indiana, shipped sealed cartons of cider to herself in Omaha, Nebraska. Nebraska law forbids any sale of alcoholic beverages unless the seller is a Nebraska resident holding a state permit, and Congress has not authorized state regulation of these interstate shipments.

If Nora sells the cartons exactly as shipped, while they remain unopened in her hands, is Nebraska's law constitutional as applied to that sale?

Explanation. The majority held that, absent congressional authorization, a state may not prohibit the sale by a nonresident importer of goods that remain in their original packages and have not yet become mingled with the general mass of property in the state. Intoxicating liquors are articles of commerce, and the right to import carries the right of the importer to sell in the unbroken original package. (Derived from Leisy v. Hardin (n.d.).)