United States v. Classic

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=United States v. Classic
ArgueDate=April 7
ArgueYear=1941
DecideDate=May 26
DecideYear=1941
FullName=United States v. Classic, et al.
USVol=313
USPage=299
Citation=61 S. Ct. 1031; 85 L. Ed. 1368; 1941 U.S. LEXIS 601
Prior=On appeal from the District Court of the U.S. for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Subsequent=
Holding=U.S. Const. art. 1, Sec. 2 empowers Congress to protect rights of electors in state primary elections; upheld Federal Corrupt Practices Act
SCOTUS=1940-1941
Majority=Stone
JoinMajority=Frankfurter, Reed, Roberts; Hughes took no part
Concurrence=
Dissent=Douglas, joined by Black, Murphy
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 2; U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 4; 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 51

"United States v. Classic" 313 U.S. 299 (1941) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the United States Constitution empowered Congress to regulate primary elections and political party nominations procedures—but only in cases where state law made primaries and nominations part of the election and/or whenever the primary effectively determined the outcome of the election.

Many observers assumed that the court had already ruled in "Newberry v. U.S.," 256 U.S. 232 (1921), that primary elections could not be regulated under the powers granted to Congress under Article I, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. But writing for the majority, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone argued that the "Newberry" court had been deeply divided on the issue and no majority had ruled one way or the other. Utilizing the reasoning by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White and Justice Mahlon Pitney in their concurrent opinions in "Newberry," Stone argued that the Constitution's protection of the right to vote cannot be effectively exercised without reaching to primary elections and/or political party nominating procedures.

In a "diffident" dissent, Justice William O. Douglas agreed that the Constutition gives the Congress the right to regulate primaries, but concluded that the U.S. criminal code did not explicitly outlaw the actions in question. "It is not enough for us to find in the vague penumbra of a statute some offense about which Congress could have legislated, and then to particularize it as a crime because it is highly offensive," Douglas wrote. "Sec. 19 does not purport to be an exercise by Congress of its power to regulate primaries."

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 313

External links

* [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/313/299.html Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com]