United States v. Cardiff (344 U.S. 174)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 8, 1952 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 344 U.S. 174 · 73 S. Ct. 189
- Docket
- No. 27
- Argued
- November 17, 1952
- Decided
- December 8, 1952
- Term
- October Term 1952
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Douglas
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- Federal law held unconstitutional
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Frankfurter, Justice Reed, Justice Black
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice R. H. Jackson
- Dissenting
- Justice Burton
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent was convicted of violating § 301 (f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U. S. C. § 331 (f). That section prohibits “The refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by section 704.” Section 704 authorizes the federal officers or employees “after first making request and obtaining permission of the owner, operator, or custodian” of the plant or factory “to enter” and “to inspect” the establishment, equipment, materials and the like “at reasonable times.” Respondent is president of a corporation which processes apples at Yakima, Washington, for shipment in interstate commerce. Authorized agents applied to respondent for permission to enter and inspect his factory at reasonable hours. He refused permission, and it was that refusal which was the basis of the information filed against him and under which he was convicted and fined. 95 F. Supp. 206. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 301 (f), when read with § 704, prohibits a refusal to permit entry and inspection only if such permission has previously been granted. 194 F. 2d 686. The case is here on certiorari. 343 U. S. 940. The Department of Justice urges us to read § 301 (f) as prohibiting a refusal to permit entry or inspection at any reasonable time. It argues that that construction is needed if the Act is to have…
Excerpt of a 4,820-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.