Champion v. Ames

188 U.S. 321 (1903), argued 15–16 Dec. 1902, decided 23 Feb. 1903 by vote of 5 to 4; Harlan for the Court, Fuller in dissent. Known as the Lottery Case, Champion v. Ames raised crucial questions regarding the extent of congressional power over interstate commerce and the existence of a federal equivalent of the state police power. These issues were central to the Progressives' attempts to make federal authority commensurate with the nation's emerging needs.

Champion challenged the constitutionality of an 1895 statute designed to suppress the lottery traffic in interstate commerce under which he had been indicted. The majority focused on two major issues: whether lottery tickets were subjects of commerce and the scope of the interstate commerce power. Justice John Marshall Harlan ruled the tickets were items of real value, whose carriage across state lines was indeed interstate commerce. Defining the commerce power in extensive terms that recognized congressional authority to prohibit certain transportation and to meet expanding needs, he held the lottery act constitutional.

The minority opinion differed on definitions and the scope of power. It equated lottery tickets with contracts and negotiable instruments, which were not considered objects of traffic; denied that the tickets were intrinsically injurious; and maintained that federal exercise of the police power violated the Tenth Amendment. Despite Harlan's guarded language, both proponents and opponents viewed the decision as establishing a de facto federal police power, and national protective legislation increased rapidly. However, the focus on the injuriousness of the product provided a measure of flexibility that permitted the Court to retrench as progressivism waned.

.

See also Commerce Power; Police Power

— Barbara C. Steidle

Champion v. Ames
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 27–28, 1901 Reargued October 16–17, 1901 Reargued December 15–16, 1902 Decided February 23, 1903
Full case name	Charles F. Champion v. John C. Ames, United States Marshal
Citations	188 U.S. 321 (more) 23 S. Ct. 321; 47 L. Ed. 492; 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1283
Prior history	Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois
Holding
The Court held that trafficking lottery tickets did constitute interstate commerce that could be regulated by the U.S. Congress under the Commerce Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice Melville Fuller Associate Justices John M. Harlan · David J. Brewer Henry B. Brown · George Shiras, Jr. Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.
Case opinions
Majority	Harlan, joined by Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes
Dissent	Fuller, joined by Brewer, Shiras, Peckham

Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903)^[1], was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce that could be regulated by the U.S. Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Congress enacted the Federal Lottery Act in 1895 , which prohibited the buying or selling of lottery tickets across state lines. The appellant, Charles Champion, was indicted for shipping Paraguayan lottery tickets from Texas to California. The indictment was challenged on the grounds that the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to prohibit commerce of any item.

Most important in this case was that the Supreme Court recognized that Congress' power to regulate interstate traffic is plenary. That is, the power is complete in and of itself. This wide discretion allowed Congress to regulate traffic as it sees fit, within Constitutional limits, even to the extent of prohibiting goods, as here. This plenary power is distinct from the aggregate-impact theories later espoused in the Shreveport line of cases.

The 5-4 decision upholding the statute was authored by John Marshall Harlan. The dissent by Chief Justice Fuller was joined by Justice Brewer, Justice Shiras, and Justice Peckham.

See also

• The Louisiana State Lottery
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 188
• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), which is actually the first time the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is plenary (see Chief Justice Marshall's majority opinion)

External links

• ^ 188 U.S. 321 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)