123 U.S. 623 (1887)
Kansas adopted a constitutional amendment in 1880 prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.1 To implement this, the legislature passed an act in February 1881, effective May 1, 1881, that criminalized manufacturing or selling such liquors without permits for the permitted purposes and declared violating establishments common nuisances subject to abatement.2
An 1885 amendatory act further detailed the nuisance procedures.3 Peter Mugler faced two indictments in Saline County for selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors without the required license or permit after the 1881 act took effect.4 He was convicted in both cases, fined one hundred dollars each, and ordered jailed until payment.5
The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed both judgments.6 In a separate proceeding, the State of Kansas petitioned in Atchison County court to declare the brewery of Ziebold & Hagelin a common nuisance, abate it, and enjoin prohibited uses.7 The defendants removed the case to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kansas on federal question grounds.8
After recasting pleadings for equity, the circuit court dismissed the suit, prompting the State's appeal.9 Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin had constructed their breweries specifically for beer production years before the 1880 amendment and continued operations without permits after the 1881 statute.10 The buildings and machinery held little value for other uses, and Mugler's single proven sale involved beer made prior to the act's effective date.11
Whether the Kansas statutes prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment?12
No. The dispute in these cases centers on the validity of Kansas legislation implementing a constitutional prohibition on intoxicating liquors.1516
Upon the ratification of the 1880 amendment to the Kansas constitution, the state legislature passed the 1881 act that criminalized the manufacture and sale of spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors without permits for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes and that declared violating places to be common nuisances.17 The 1885 amendatory act elaborated the procedures for abating such nuisances through judicial proceedings and injunctions.18
Peter Mugler operated a brewery in Saline County and was indicted for both selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors without the required permit after the 1881 act took effect.19 Following his convictions, he was fined one hundred dollars in each case and ordered to jail until the fines were paid, judgments that the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.20
Separately, the State brought an action against Ziebold & Hagelin in Atchison County to have their brewery declared a common nuisance and abated.21 After removal to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kansas, the circuit court dismissed the bill, and the State appealed that decree to the Supreme Court of the United States.22
Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin had erected their breweries years before the 1880 amendment specifically for beer production, and those facilities possessed little value for alternative uses.23 Mugler's proven sale involved beer manufactured prior to the effective date of the 1881 statute, and both parties continued operations without obtaining the permits required by the new laws.24
The statutes as applied to Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.25 The prohibition bears a substantial relation to protecting the community from the evils of intoxicating liquors.26 The convictions and nuisance abatement directly enforce the legislative determination that such manufacture and sale are injurious.27
The Kansas statutes do not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.28
Whether such statutes may validly prohibit manufacture for personal use or for export?29
A state may prohibit manufacture of intoxicating liquors even for personal use as a beverage when the legislature determines that such manufacture would tend to defeat the effort to guard the community against the evils of excessive use.30 The right to manufacture for personal use does not inhere in citizenship.31
Yes. The legislative judgment that recognizing a right to manufacture for personal use would cripple the prohibition scheme is binding on the courts.32 Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin continued manufacturing without permits after the 1881 act took effect.33 The statutes validly reach even personal-use production.34
The statutes may validly prohibit manufacture for personal use or for export.35
Whether enforcement against breweries constructed before the 1880 amendment deprives owners of property without due process of law?36
The police power allows a state to prohibit noxious uses of property even when the prohibition diminishes the value of property constructed before the law changed.37 All property is held under the implied obligation that its use shall not be injurious to the community, and no compensation is required for such regulation.38
No. Enforcement against the pre-existing breweries of Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin does not deprive the owners of property without due process.3940 The buildings and machinery had little value for other uses only because the owners persisted in the forbidden manufacture after the 1881 act.41 The state may declare such uses prejudicial without compensating the resulting depreciation.42
Enforcement against breweries constructed before the 1880 amendment does not deprive owners of property without due process of law.43
Whether the statutory scheme declaring places common nuisances and authorizing their abatement by injunction without jury trial denies due process?44
A state may declare places kept for the illegal manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors to be common nuisances and provide for their abatement by equitable proceedings without a jury trial.45 Equity has long possessed jurisdiction to abate public nuisances and the statute requires the court to find that the place is being so used after the statute's passage.46
No. The scheme applied to Ziebold & Hagelin's brewery does not deny due process.47 The court must ascertain whether the place has been kept and maintained as a nuisance since the statute was passed.48 The defendants admitted the facts necessary to establish the violation in their removal petition and answer.49
The statutory scheme does not deny due process.50
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Field dissented from the judgment in the Ziebold & Hagelin case.51 He agreed that the State could prohibit the sale of liquors manufactured in the state but reserved judgment on manufacture for export or sale of imported liquors.52 On the abatement procedure, he argued that the statute declares every place a common nuisance without notice or hearing and commands the destruction of all liquor and property used in the brewery.53
This constitutes confiscation rather than regulation.54 He contended that the destruction is not limited by necessity and involves wanton injury to property that could be used for lawful purposes, reversing the established principle that abatement must be limited by its necessity.55
Whether the statutes impermissibly burden commerce among the states or with foreign nations?56
No. The statutes as applied to Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin do not impermissibly burden commerce because the record contains no intimation that the beer manufactured was intended to be carried out of the state.5960 The question whether the laws would be invalid if they reached export liquor is not presented here.61
The statutes do not impermissibly burden commerce among the states or with foreign nations.62