United States v. Farrar

Background

A private individual was indicted for knowingly buying intoxicating liquor fit for drinking, charged under the National Prohibition Act. The federal government prosecuted in the district court in Massachusetts. The trial court quashed the indictment on the ground that an ordinary purchaser does not fall within the Act’s permit provisions, and the government appealed.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the Act’s language requiring a permit to "purchase" alcohol without exception applied to ordinary buyers of beverage liquor. The Court explained the statute has two parts: it absolutely bans traffic in beverage liquors while it permits and tightly regulates nonbeverage uses through permits. Relying on a prior decision (United States v. Katz) and the statute’s structure, the Court concluded that the permit rules were meant for persons authorized to deal in nonbeverage liquor, not ordinary purchasers. The Court also noted that executive enforcement practice for the life of the Act treated purchasers as outside the permit requirement. Because the indictment did not allege that the defendant was authorized to deal in nonbeverage liquor, the indictment failed to state an offense.

Real world impact

The decision prevents prosecutors from turning the Act’s permit rule into a tool to criminalize ordinary buyers of beverage liquor in cases like this. It confines criminal liability under the permit provisions to sellers, dealers, or those authorized to handle nonbeverage alcohol. The ruling rests on statutory reading and long administrative practice and thus leaves Congress and the executive free to change policy if they choose.