Cleveland v. United States (1946)

Cleveland v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 10, 1945
Reargued October 17, 1946
Decided November 18, 1946
Full case nameCleveland et al. v. United States
Citations329 U.S. 14 (more)
67 S. Ct. 13; 91 L. Ed. 12; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 1725
Case history
Prior146 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1945)
Holding
Affirmed. Notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is a person's religious belief, the Mann Act prohibits the transportation of women across state lines to participate in polygamy.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas, joined by Vinson, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Burton
ConcurrenceRutledge
DissentMurphy
Laws applied
18 U.S.C. 398
Abrogated by
Child Sexual Abuse & Pornography Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-628, § 5(b)(1), 100 Stat. 3510–11 (in part)
Mormonism and polygamy
Portrait of five caucasian Latter-day Saints, married to each other in nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint polygamy, against the backdrop of what may be a hedge. All seem to be posing; none face the camera. Leftmost is a woman, seated, her hair done in a high, braided bun, wearing a dress with buttons down the middle; in her hands are an open book. Center-left, standing furthest to the back (though still very much with the portraited group) is a woman, her hair done up but resting low, in a polka-dotted top and a scarf or ascot around her neck and a skirt. She carries a hat, held to her waist. Center is a woman, sort of kneeling or seated (perhaps there is an unseen stool she's sitting on?). She wears a white dress, her hair is done up in a high and large bun and she wears a headband. In her right arm she holds a hat, over her knees; her left arm rests on the lap of the man sitting center right. She may be leaning against his legs. Center-right is a man, wearing a suit jacket of some kind and a high-collared shirt. He is balded and bearded. His left hand is placed over the left arm of the center woman. Rightmost is a woman, her hair done up but resting low, sitting in a visibly wooden (likely handcrafted) chair. She wears a dress with buttons going down the middle. She holds a hat, which looks very like center's hat, over her knees.
A Mormon "Saint" and Wives by Charles Weitfle (c. 1878–1885)
Early Mormonism
Joseph Smith • Wives of Joseph Smith • Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy • Spiritual wifery
Latter-day Saints
Brigham Young • Wives of Brigham Young • Late-19th century Mormon polygamy • Mormon colonies in Mexico • 1890 Manifesto • Reed Smoot hearings • 1904 Manifesto
Mormon fundamentalism
AUB • Centennial Park group • Council of Friends • Current state of polygamy • FLDS Church • Kingston Group • List of leaders • Lost boys • Short Creek raid • YFZ Ranch
Antipolygamy laws
Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act • Poland Act • Edmunds Act • Edmunds–Tucker Act
Case law
Reynolds v. US • Cannon v. US • Clawson v. US • Davis v. Beason • Late Corp. of the LDS Church v. US • Cleveland v. US • Brown v. Buhman • List of polygamy court cases
Related articles
Celestial marriage • Freedom of religion in the US • Legal status of polygamy • List of practitioners  • Polygamy czar • Polygamy in Christianity • Polygamy in North America • Timeline of civil marriage in the United States
Latter Day Saints portal

Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is a person's religious belief, the Mann Act prohibits the transportation of women across state lines to participate in polygamy.[1]

Background

Individuals were members of a fundamentalist Mormon sect that practiced polygamy. The individuals were indicted for transporting women across state lines to enter into plural marriages. Following a bench trial, all of the individuals were convicted for violations of the Mann Act. They then appealed their convictions to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the convictions.[2] The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to hear the case.

Opinion of the court

Affirmed. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the court.

The Court held that transporting a woman or girl across state lines for the purpose of making her a plural wife in a polygamous marriage is a violation of the Mann Act[3] because it is for "an immoral purpose." In explaining its reasoning, the court opined that although the Mann Act was primarily intended to target commercialized white sex slave trade, the phrase "for any other immoral purpose" makes plain that the Act is not so narrowly limited. In noting the historical unlawfulness of polygamy in the United States, the Court found polygamy to be an immoral act of the type contemplated by the Mann Act's prohibitions.

Finally, the Court found that there is no viable defense to the Mann Act by virtue of the religious beliefs that motivate the practice of polygamy.

Concurring opinion

Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge delivered a concurring opinion. Justice Rutledge agreed with the majority's decision insofar as the majority opinion followed the precedent set in Caminetti v. United States.[4] However, Rutledge diverged from the majority view in expressing his opinion that the Caminetti case was wrongly decided, as it improperly expanded the application of the Mann Act beyond the legislators' intent.

Dissenting opinion

Justice Frank Murphy delivered a dissenting opinion, stating that polygamy is not of the same genus as "prostitution and debauchery" as contemplated by the Mann Act.

See also

References

  1. ^ Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946).
  2. ^ Cleveland v. United States, 146 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1945).
  3. ^ Mann Act, 36 Stat. 825, 18 U.S.C. § 398
  4. ^ Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).