Dillon v. Gloss,
256 U.S. 368 (1921)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921)

Dillon v. Gloss

No. 251

Argued March 22, 1921

Decided May 16, 1921

256 U.S. 368


1. Article V of the Constitution implies that amendments submitted thereunder must be ratified, if at all, within some reasonable time after their proposal. Pp. 256 U. S. 371, 256 U. S. 374.

2. Under this Article, Congress, in proposing an amendment, may fix a reasonable time for ratification. P. 256 U. S. 375.

3. The period of seven years, fixed by Congress in the resolution proposing the Eighteenth Amendment was reasonable. P. 256 U. S. 376.

4. The Eighteenth Amendment became a part of the Constitution on January 16, 1919, when, as the Court notices judicially, its ratification in the state legislatures was consummated, not on January 29, 1919, when the ratification was proclaimed by the Secretary of State. P. 256 U. S. 376.

5. As this Amendment, by its own terms, was to go into effect one year after being ratified, §§ 3 and 26, Title II, of the National Prohibition Act, which, by § 21, Title III, were to be in force from and after the effective date of the Amendment, were in force on January 16, 1920. P. 256 U. S. 376.

262 F. 563 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 256 U. S. 370

Primary Holding

It is not unconstitutional for Congress to require that a new constitutional amendment must be passed within a certain time.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.