Mugler v. Kansas

Supreme Court of the United States · 1887 · Property

123 U.S. 623 (1887)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertypolice powerdue processFourteenth Amendmenttakingspublic nuisanceliquor regulationproperty value diminution

Facts

Kansas amended its constitution in 1880 to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes, and enacted statutes in 1881 and 1885 to enforce that policy. Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin had built and operated breweries before the amendment, continued manufacturing beer afterward without the required permits, and Mugler also made an in-state sale after the 1881 act took effect. Their brewery buildings and machinery were specially adapted to making beer and were of little value if not so used. Kansas also authorized places used for unlawful manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors to be treated as common nuisances and abated by injunction.

Issue

Whether Kansas statutes prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage use, and authorizing places used for unlawful manufacture or sale to be abated as common nuisances, violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the owners of liberty or property without due process of law. A related question was whether applying those statutes to breweries built before prohibition amounted to an uncompensated taking because the property greatly lost value.

Rule

A State may, in the exercise of its police power, prohibit the manufacture and sale within its limits of intoxicating liquors for general or individual use as a beverage, and may declare places maintained for such unlawful activity to be common nuisances subject to abatement. Such legislation does not violate due process or effect a taking merely because it diminishes the value of property previously used for that business, so long as the statute has a real and substantial relation to the protection of public health, morals, or safety and is not a palpable invasion of constitutional rights.

🔒

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.

The legislature of Ohio enacts a statute making it a misdemeanor to manufacture or sell a highly intoxicating herbal drink for beverage use, except under permits for medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. Lena Ortiz owns a Cincinnati facility designed solely for producing the drink and argues the law violates due process because adults should remain free to make the beverage for their own household consumption.

How should a court rule on Lena's due process challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that a state may prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for general or individual beverage use as an exercise of police power. It emphasized that the legislature, not the courts, primarily decides whether such manufacture threatens public health, morals, or safety, and that courts should not override that judgment unless the statute has no real or substantial relation to those ends or is a palpable invasion of rights.