Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. United States
Citation | 53 S.Ct. 509,77 L.Ed. 1025,289 U.S. 48 |
Decision Date | 20 March 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 538,538 |
Parties | BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs.Svienbjorn Johnson, of Urbana, Ill., and Oscar E. Carlstrom, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 49-51 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 52-56 intentionally omitted] Messrs. William A. Schnader, Atty. Gen., of Pennsylvania, and William A. Stevens, Atty. Gen., of New Jersey, amici curiae.
The University of Illinois imported scientific apparatus for use in one of its educational departments. Customs duties were exacted at the rates prescribed by the Tariff Act of 1922, c. 356, 42 Stat. 858. The university paid under protest, insisting that as an instrumentality of the state of Illinois, and discharging a governmental function, it was entitled to import the articles duty free. At the hearing on the protest, the Customs Court decided in favor of the Government (59 Treas. Dec. 747) and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed the decision. 61 Treas.Dec. 1334. This Court granted certiorari. 28 U.S.C. § 308 (28 USCA 308); 287 U.S. 596, 53 S.Ct. 315, 77 L.Ed. —-.
The Tariff Act of 1922 is entitled, 'An Act to provide revenue, to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes.' The Congress thus asserted that it was exercising its constitutional authority 'to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' Article 1, § 8, cl. 3. The words of the Constitution Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 193, 6 L.Ed. 23. It is an essential attribute of the power that it is exclusive and plenary. As an exclusive power, its exercise may not be limited, qualified, or impeded to any extent by state action. Id., pages 196—200 of 9 Wheat., 6 L.Ed. 23; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 446, 6 L.Ed. 678; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 173, 16 L.Ed. 644; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 492, 493, 24 S.Ct. 349, 48 L.Ed. 525. The power is buttressed by the express provision of the Constitution denying to the States authority to lay imposts or duties on imports or exports without the consent of the Congress. Article 1, § 10, cl. 2.
The Congress may determine what articles may be imported into this country and the terms upon which importation is permitted. No one can be said to have a vested right to carry on foreign commerce with the United States. Buttfield v. Stranahan, supra; The Abby Dodge, 223 U.S. 166, 176, 177, 32 S.Ct. 310, 56 L.Ed. 390; Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216, 218, 219, 35 S.Ct. 285, 59 L.Ed. 544; Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 329, 330, 36 S.Ct. 131, 60 L.Ed. 308, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 317. If the Congress saw fit to lay an embargo or to prohibit altogether the importation of specified articles, as the Congress may (The Brigantine William, 2 Hall, Amer. L.J., 255, Fed. Cas. No. 16,700; Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, pages 192, 193 of 9 Wheat., 6 L.Ed. 23; Brolan v. United States, supra; Weber v. Freed, supra; Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 434, 52 S.Ct. 607, 76 L.Ed. 1204), no state by virtue of any interest of its own would be entitled to override the restriction. The principle of duality in our system of government does not touch the authority of the Congress in the regulation of foreign commerce.
Appellant argues that the Tariff Act is a revenue measure; that it is not the less so because it if framed with a view, as its title states, of encouraging the industries of the United States (Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 411, 412, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624); that the duty is a tax, that the act is not one for the regulation of commerce but is an exertion of the taxing power; and that, as such, it is subject to the constitutional limitation that the Congress may not lay a tax so as to impose a direct burden upon an instru- mentality of a state used in the performance of a governmental function.
It is true that the taxing power is a distinct power; that it is distinct from the power to regulate commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, page 201 of Wheat., 6 L.Ed. 23. It is also true that the taxing power embraces the power to lay duties. Article 1, § 8, cl. 1. But because the taxing power is a distinct power and embraces the power to lay duties, it does not follow that duties may not be imposed in the exercise of the power to regulate commerce. The contrary is well established. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, page 202 of 9 Wheat., 6 L.Ed. 23. 'Under the power to regulate foreign commerce Congress impose duties on importations, give drawbacks, pass embargo and non-intercourse laws, and make all other regulations necessary to navigation, to the safety of passengers, and the protection of property.' Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449, 505, 10 L.Ed. 800. The laying of duties is 'a common means of executing the power.' 2 Story on the Constitution, § 1088. It has not been questioned that this power may be exerted by laying duties 'to countervail the regulations and restrictions of foreign nations.' Id., § 1087. And the Congress may, and undoubtedly does, in its tariff legislation consider the conditions of foreign trade in all its aspects and effects. Its requirements are not the less regulatory because they are not prohibitory or retaliatory. They embody the congressional conception of the extent to which regulation should go. But if the Congress may thus exercise the power, and asserts, as it has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Epstein v. Lordi
...does not touch the authority of Congress in the regulation of foreign commerce." Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, 57, 53 S.Ct. 509, 77 L.Ed. 1025 (1932). In marked contrast to these traditional restrictions, the Twenty-first Amendment cedes broad po......
-
Clinton v. State Tax Commission
... ... employed or paid by the United States but by her corporate ... employers as ... 1042; Indian ... Territory Oil Co. v. Board of Com'rs, 288 U.S. 325, ... 327, 328, 53 S.Ct ... 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010; ... Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, ... 59, 53 S.Ct ... 114; Ottawa University v. Com'rs of Franklin ... County, 48 Kan. 460, ... ...
-
Japan Line, Ltd v. County of Los Angeles
...of the United States act through a single government with unified and adequate national power." Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, 59, 53 S.Ct. 509, 510, 77 L.Ed. 1025 (1933). Although the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, grants Congress power to regulate commerce "with forei......
-
Maryland v. Wirtz
...than can an individual.' 297 U.S., at 183—185, 56 S.Ct., at 424 (citations omitted). See also Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, 53 S.Ct. 509, 77 L.Ed. 1025, where the Court rejected a claim of 'state sovereignty' and held that a state university that......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WHAT HAPPENED ABROAD SHOULD HAVE STAYED ABROAD: THE FOREIGN COMMERCE CLAUSE AND NOT-SO-SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS - United States v. Durham.
...keeps Congress' limits under the Interstate Commerce Clause in check. Id. See also Board of Trustees of Univ. of III. v. United States. 289 U.S. 48, 56-57 (1933) (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 225-27 (1824)) (describing congressional authority regarding foreign trade). The Court stat......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CATCHING FLIGHTS AND COURT CASES.
...312 U.S. 100, 114 (1941) (holding Congress may regulate employment conditions); Board of Trustees of Univ. of III. v. United States, 289 U.S. 48,'57 (1933) (noting Congress may determine what articles may be imported and terms of importation); Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 436 (192......
-
Constitutional law - foreign commerce clause sucks the life from Dracula through giving restitution to foreign sex trafficking victims.
...of the Foreign Commerce Clause will become increasingly apparent. Id. See generally Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ill. v. United States, 289 U.S. 48 (1993) (finding Foreign Commerce Clause as an exclusive plenary (20.) See United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 668 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Fe......
-
The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar).
...U. (60.) Japan Line v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 (1979). (61.) Id. (62.) Id. at 448 (quoting Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, 59 (63.) Id. at 454-55 (citations omitted). (64.) Id. at 446; see also Bilder, supra note 7, at n.18, and cases cited therein. (65.) South-......