United States v. Cohen Grocery Co, 324

Citation41 S.Ct. 298,255 U.S. 81,65 L.Ed. 516,14 A.L.R. 1045
Decision Date28 February 1921
Docket NumberNo. 324,324
PartiesUNITED STATES v. L. COHEN GROCERY CO
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 82-85 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chester H. Krum, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Required on this direct appeal to decide whether Congress under the Constitution had authority to adopt section 4 of the Lever Act as re-enacted in 1919, we reproduce the section so far as relevant (Act Oct. 22, 1919, tit. 1, c. 80, § 2, 41 Stat. 297):

'That it is hereby made unlawful for any person willfully * * * to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries; to conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person * * * (e) to exact excessive prices for any necessaries. * * * Any person violating any of the provisions of this section upon conviction thereof shall be fined not exceeding $5,000 or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. * * *'

The text thus reproduced is followed by two provisos exempting from the operation either of the section or of the act enumerated persons or classes of persons engaged in agricultural or similar pursuits.

Comparing the re-enacted section with the original text (Act Aug. 10, 1917, c. 53, § 4, 40 Stat. 276 [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8 ff]), it will be seen that the only changes made by the re-enactment were the insertion of the penalty clause and an enlargement of the enumerated exemptions.

In each of two counts the defendant, the Cohen Grocery Company, alleged to be a dealer in sugar and other necessaries in the city of St. Louis, was charged with violating this section by willfully and feloniously making an unjust and unreasonable rate and charge in handling and dealing in a certain necessary; the specification in the first count being a sale for $10.07 of about 50 pounds of sugar, and that in the second, of a 100-pound bag of sugar for $19.50.

The defendant demurred on the following grounds: (a) That both counts were so vague as not to inform it of the nature and cause of the accusation; (b) that the statute upon which the indictment was based was subject to the same infirmity because it was so indefinite as not to enable it to be known what was forbidden, and therefore amounted to a delegation by Congress of legislative power to courts and juries to determine what acts should be held to be criminal and punishable; and (c) that as the country was virtually at peace Congress had no power to regulate the subject with which the section dealt. In passing on the demurrer the court, declaring that this court had settled that until the official declaration of peace there was a status of war, nevertheless decided that such conclusion was wholly negligible as to the other issues raised by the demurrer, since it was equally well settled by this court that the mere status of war did not of its own force suspend or limit the effect of the Constitution, but only caused limitations which the Constitution made applicable as the necessary and appropriate result of the status of war, to become operative. Holding that this latter result was not the case as to the particular provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments which it had under consideration; that is, as to the prohibitions which those amendments imposed upon Congress against delegating legislative power to courts and juries, against penalizing indefinite acts, and against depriving the citizen of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, the court, giving effect to the amendments in question, came to consider the grounds of demurrer relating to those subjects. In doing so and referring to an opinion previously expressed by it in charging a jury, the court said:

'Congress alone has power to define crimes against the United States. This power cannot be delegated either to the courts or to the juries of this country. * * *

'Therefore, because the law is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and because it fixes no immutable standard of guilt, but leaves such standard to the variant views of the different courts and juries which may be called on to enforce it, and because it does not inform defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him I think it is constitutionally invalid, and that the demurrer offered by the defendant ought to be sustained.'

The indictment was therefore quashed.

In cases submitted at about the same time with the one before us, and involving identical questions with those here in issue, it is contended that the section does not embrace the matters charged. We come, therefore, on our own motion in this case to dispose of that subject, since, if well founded, the contention would render a consideration of the constitutional questions unnecessary. The basis upon which the contention rests is that the words of the section do not embrace the price at which a commodity is sold, and, at any rate, the receipt of such price is not thereby intended to be penalized. We are of opinion, however, that these propositions are without merit, first, because the words of the section, as re-enacted, are broad enough to embrace the price for which a commodity is sold; and, second, because as the amended section plainly imposes a penalty for the acts which it includes when committed after its passage, the fact that the section before its re-enactment contained no penalty is of no moment. This must be the case unless it can be said that the failure at one time to impose a penalty for a forbidden act furnishes an adequate ground for preventing the subsequent enforcement of a penalty which is specifically and unmistakably provided.

We are of opinion that the court below was clearly right in ruling that the decisions of this court indisputably establish that the mere existence of a state of war could not suspend or change the operation upon the power of Congress of the guaranties and limitations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as to questions such as we are here passing upon. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121-127, 18 L. Ed. 281; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, 13 Sup. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463; United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U. S. 505, 571, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 43 L. Ed. 259; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 61, 24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 326;1 Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Company, 251 U. S. 146, 156, 40 Sup. Ct. 106, 64 L. Ed. 194. It follows that in testing the operation of the Constitution upon the subject here involved the question of the existence or nonexistence of a state of war becomes negligible, and we put it out of view.

The sole remaining inquiry, therefore, is the certainty or uncertainty of the text in question, that is, whether the words 'that it is hereby made unlawful for any person willfully * * * to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries,' constituted a fixing by Congress of an ascertainable standard of guilt and are adequate to inform persons accused of violation thereof of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. That they are not, we are of opinion, so clearly results from their mere statement as to render elaboration on the subject wholly unnecessary. Observe that the section forbids no specific or definite act. It confines the subject-matter of the investigation which it authorizes to no element essentially inhering in the transaction as to which it provides. It leaves open, therefore, the widest conceivable inquiry, the scope of which no one can foresee and the result of which no one can foreshadow or adequately guard against. In fact, we see no reason to doubt the soundness of the observation of the court below in its opinion to the effect that, to attempt to enforce the section would be the exact equivalent of an effort to carry out a statute which in terms merely penalized and punished all acts detrimental to the public interest when unjust and unreasonable in the estimation of the court and jury. And that this is not a mere abstraction, finds abundant demonstration in the cases now before us, since in the briefs in these cases the conflicting results which have arisen from the painstaking attempts of enlightended judges in seeking to carry out the statute in cases brought before them are vividly portrayed. As illustrative of this situation we append in the margin a statement from one of the briefs on the subject.2 And again, this condition would be additionally obvious if we stopped to recur to the persistent efforts which, the records disclose, were made by administrative officers, doubtless inspired by a zealous effort to discharge their duty, to establish a standard of their own to be used as a basis to render the section possible of execution.

That it results from the consideration which we have stated that the section before us was void for repugnancy to the Constitution is not open to question. United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 219-220, 23 L. Ed. 563; United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 288, 11 Sup. Ct. 538, 35 L. Ed. 190; Todd v. United States, 158 U. S. 278 282, 15 Sup. Ct. 889, 39 L. Ed. 982. And see United States v. Sharp, 27 Fed. Cas. 1041, 1043; Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co. v. Dey (C. C.) 35 Fed. 866, 876, 1 L. R. A. 744; Tozer v. United States (C. C.) 52 Fed. 917, 919, 920; United States v. Capital Traction Co., 34 App. D. C. 592, 19 Ann. Cas. 68; United States v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 242 U. S. 208, 237-238, 37 Sup. Ct. 95, 61 L. Ed. 251.

But decided cases are referred to which it is insisted sustain the contrary view. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 29 Sup. Ct. 220, 53 L. Ed. 417; Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 33 Sup. Ct. 780, 57...

To continue reading

Request your trial
535 cases
  • State v. Strong Oil Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 23 Octubre 1980
    ...price is a significant variant from the market price for these goods as defined by the statute. In United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516, the Court held unconstitutional a criminal statute which made it unlawful for any person "to make any unjust or ......
  • State v. Sears
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 5 Junio 1940
    ...... State v. Somerville, 67 Wash. 638, 122 P. 324; Shea v. Olson,. supra; McDermott v. State, 197 ... in the decisions in either of the states last above referred. to. . . ... sanctioned by this court. Nash v. United States, 229. U.S. 373, 377, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. ... States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. ......
  • United States v. Lambert
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 3 Febrero 1978
    ...by the prosecutor, the court, or the jury. Smith v. Goguen, supra, 415 U.S. at 572, 94 S.Ct. 1242; United States v. Cohen Grocery, 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921); United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221, 23 L.Ed. 563 (1876). However, the present case is not an example o......
  • Cobb v. Department of Public Works
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 11 Julio 1932
    ...Ann. Cas. 1918C, 942; Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 564, 565, 51 S. Ct. 582, 75 L. Ed. 1264; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 41 S. Ct. 298, 65 L. Ed. 516, 14 A. L. R. 1045; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040; Spraigue v. Thompson, 11......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude Is Void for Vagueness
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 90, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...341 U.S. 223, 231 (1951). 158. Seeid. at 230 (citing Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921)). 159. See Arriaga v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 219, 223 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that the deportation ground for crimes of stalking at 8 U.S.C.......
  • COVERING PRYING EYES WITH AN INVISIBLE HAND: PRIVACY, ANTITRUST, AND THE NEW BRANDEIS MOVEMENT.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 36 No. 2, March 2023
    • 22 Marzo 2023
    ...or all cases, and leave courts free to ramble through the wilds of economic theory in order to maintain a flexible approach."). (255.) 255 U.S. 81 (256.) Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 602-04 (2015) (discussing L. Cohen Grocery Co.). (257.) L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. at 89-90 (......
  • STARE DECISIS, WORKABILITY, AND ROE V. WADE: AN INTRODUCTION.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review No. 18, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...[section] 924 (2020). (32.) Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2558 (first alteration in original) (quoting United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 91 (1921)); see also Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (2011); Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009); Begay v. United States, 553 U.S......
  • Excessive Drug Pricing as an Antitrust Violation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Journal No. 82-2, June 2019
    • 1 Junio 2019
    ...by Food Control and the District of Columbia Rents Act, Pub. L. 66-63, 41 Stat. 297, 298 (1919). 27 United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89 (1921). 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 See id. at 90 n.1. The Court subsequently refused to distinguish L. Cohen Grocery on the basis that it was a cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT