Murphy v. United States

Background

Two men who ran a place where intoxicating liquor was allegedly sold were tried criminally under the National Prohibition Act and were acquitted. The United States then filed a civil lawsuit seeking to have the same place closed and its use enjoined under the Act’s civil-abatement provision. At trial the men pointed to their criminal acquittal and asked the court to dismiss the civil case, but the District Court ordered the place abated and closed for one year and the question whether the acquittal barred the civil suit was certified to this Court.

Reasoning

The Court examined the statute’s two parts: one making unlawful liquor operations a crime and another allowing a civil suit to stop or abate a nuisance. The Court said the civil provision authorizes preventive relief — temporary restraint, an order to stop unlawful use, and a possible one-year closure or a bond to guarantee compliance. That civil remedy, the Court explained, is aimed at stopping the nuisance rather than punishing the defendants again for the crime, so a prior criminal acquittal does not automatically bar the civil abatement suit.

Real world impact

The decision means the Government can pursue civil measures to close or restrict properties used for illegal liquor even if criminal charges did not lead to conviction. Those affected may face property closure for up to a year or be required to post a bond to promise no further unlawful use.