Document: 332 U.S. 689 68 S.Ct. 331 92 L.Ed. 297 UNITED STATESv.SULLIVAN. No. 121. Argued Dec. 9, 1947. Decided Jan. 19, 1948. Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Messrs. M. Arnold and J. Madden Hatcher, both Columbus, Ga., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Respondent, a retail druggist in Georgia, was charged two counts an information with violation § 301(k) Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act 1938. That section prohibits 'the doing any * act respect to, drug if such is done while article held sale after shipment interstate commerce results being misbranded.'1 Section 502(f) declares 'to be misbranded unless its labeling bears (1) adequate directions use; (2) warnings against use dangerous to health, or unsafe dosage as are necessary protection users.' The specifically that respondent had performed certain acts which resulted sulfathiazole 'misbranded' 'held commerce.' 2 facts alleged were these: A laboratory shipped from Chicago, Illinois, consignee at Atlanta, number bottles, each containing 1,000 tablets. These bottles labels affixed them, which, required by 502(f)(1) Act, set out tablets protect ultimt e consumers dangers incident this use.2 Respondent bought one these properly labeled Atlanta consignee, transferred it his drugstore, there resale. On separate occasions twelve removed branded bottle, placed pill boxes, sold customers. boxes 'sulfathiazole.' They did not contain statutorily danger. 3 Respondent's motion dismiss overruled, jury waived, evidence heard, convicted under counts. 67 F.Supp. 192. 4 Circuit Court Appeals reversed. 161 F.2d 629, 630. court thought result respondent's action became within meaning 'broadest possible sense' Act's language 'may include what happened.' However, also ought taken so broadly 'but apply only holding first importer shipment.' Thus interpreted statutory 'while commerce' though Congress said person who himself received way We granted certiorari review important question concerning coverage. 5 First. narrow construction given rested much upon Court's view consequences might broader interpretation urged Government. pointed sales here involved made Columbus nine months been Chicago Atlanta. It impressed fact that, should literal meaning, criminal provisions relied on would 'apply all intrastate imported drugs intermediate State lapse time; drugs, but similar foods, devices cosmetics, equally covered Act.' emphasized farreaching inroads customary control local authorities traditionally activities, purpose afford purchasers federal harmful cosmetics ascribed absence exceptionally clear mandate, citing Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros., 312 349, 61 580, 85 881. Another reason refraining construing applicable articles sale, even previously commerce, sc h raise grave doubts constitutionality. In support position cited. National Labor Relations Board Jones & Laughlin Steel Coroporation, 301 1, 30, 57 615, 620, 81 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352; Schechter Poultry Corporation United States, 295 495, 55 837, 79 1570, 97 947. 6 restrictive statute merely because has chosen depart custom giving effect express employed require face constitutional question. And none foregoing cases, nor other they relied, authorizes interpreting meaning. When reasonably plain meant prohibit conduct, no above references justifies distortion congressional purpose, clearly correct makes marked deviations leads inevitably invalidity. Although statutes must precise unambiguous ordinary can know how avoid unlawful see Kraus Inc., 327 614, 621, 622, 66 705, 707, 708, 90 894, determining whether meet test, their fair accord evident intent Congress. States Raynor, 302 540, 552, 58 353, 358, 82 413. 7 Second. consideration moved give belief case reference misbranding necessarily 'similar these,' said, 'are coverage graphically magnified. told application logically grocers beauty parlor operators reproduce bulk container individual item when sell purchaser. prophesied Government, will later applied merchants label sticks candy sardines containers sale. 8 scope offense defined judicially narrowed envisioning extreme applications different relate food, like. There opportunity enough consider contingencies ever arise. may now noted, however, Administrator rather broad discretion—broad undoubtedly enable him perform duties fairly without wasting efforts more than technical infractions law. As illustration Administrator's discretion, 306 permits excuse minor violations warning he believes public interest thereby adequately served. extensive authority §§ 405, 503 603 issue regulations exempting requirements many otherwise fall portion Act. 405 regard food apparently permit relaxation some impose burden retailers proportion value consumer. 9 Third. we seek find creates requires misbranded, 'after o mmerce.' seriously contended ambiguous. 502(f), seen, provides contains warnings. requires. suggestion although alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration bottle have 'misbranding,' transferring pills non-branded been, long empty disturbed. Such argument cannot sustained. For chief forbidding destruction keep intact frustrated consumer buys required, torn original non-labeled one. ambiguity 10 Furthermore, great ingenuity discover additional requirement occur words accurately describe conduct here. He true them over six completed delivery another consignee. But used unqualifiedly occurred, intervened, end shipment. Accordingly falls 301(k). 11 Fourth. Given found have, thoroughly consistent general aims purposes whole designed primarily products. This recognized Dotterweich, 320 277, 282, 64 134, 137, 88 48, reviewing House Senate Committee Reports bill Its safeguard applying moment introduction into ultimate 301(a) forbids 'introduction adulterated drugs; 301(b) adulteration 'in commerce'; 301(c) 'receipt drug, proffered thereof pay otherwise.' three paragraphs alone supply paragraph (k) fill gap extend every gone through until finally reached Doubtless insure very passed hands transaction Interstate Foreign Commerce report follows: 'In order contemplated law full extent constitutionally possible, inserted prohibiting changing misbrand shipment.'3 hold arged information. 12 Fifth. construed beyond Constitution invades powers reserved States. challenge Pure Food Drug 1906, 34 Stat. 768, 21 U.S.C.A. et seq., rejected, McDermott Wisconsin, 228 115, 33 431, 754, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 984, Ann.Cas.1915A, 39. 301(k), authorized seizure another, remained 'unsold.' make upheld proper exercise clause. variants between circumstances containers; put containers—the transferred. Also, possessor cans receive shipment; here, petitioner shipment, wholesaler direct sufficient think detract applicability present decision. cases alike relates power clause regulate branding future purely commerce. reasons therefore persuasive decided since decision lend validity See, e.g., Walsh, 432, 1283; Wickard Filburn, 317 111, 63 82, 87 122; Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 110, 62 523, 86 726; Darby, 100, 657, 451, 609, 132 1430; Olsen, Cir., 669. 13 Reversed. 14 RUTLEDGE, concurring. 15 presented 1938 posed inescapable dilemma. either ignore Congress' obvious intention literally plainly corner grocer takes stick sells child wrapping label. 16 trouble-making factor statute's relating drugs. Those themselves unequivocal expressed requirements. So legislative history. Standing alone, therefore, cover room serious 17 those do stand entirely independent structure. respects, particularly interlaced affecting cosmetics. drawn conclusion decisions commodities. 18 If written this, furnishing substantial basis differentiating difficult I conceive be. laid trap faced. Only oversimplified terms effects could produce result. 19 complia ted. numerous treat subjects differently others. differences similarities, ignored. More looking 502(f). 20 deals indiscriminately surface alone. Hence transfer sulfathiazole, highly small box 'any act' candies, usually harmless, act.' From hypothesis then concluded phrase particularities precede it, namely,' removal' part label, limited particularities. almost, quite, removes section. goes far emasculate section's effective enforcement, especially relation Any dealer simply leaving intact, removing contents container, selling however deadly, broken parcels warning. 22 disastrously limited. 'doing device, cosmetic' prohibited 'if misbranded.' provides, single common definition differing sections devices, 403, 502, 602. 23 term uniform connotation. contrary, variable commodities defining misbranding. act,' produces consequences. Each account intended specific type commodity particular overridden broadside generalization glossed statute. expected, lump indiscriminate hopper consequence. Brief several incorporated substantiates conclusion. 24 provisions.1 respects indicates subdivision presents problems interpretation. Neither foods provision directly comparable violated. section, contrasted 403(k), subsections dealing foods. Comparison misbranding, whereas same method proper. 25 shall deemed misbranded: 26 'Unless pathological conditions children where methods duration administration application, manner form, users: Provided, paragraph, promulgate device requirement.' 27 provision, improper use, 'for To effective, reaches consumer.2 history leaves doubt draftsmen sponsors realized importance having time just sale.3 health further proviso, directs exemptions compliance 'is health.' 28 principal 'making criminal,' different. By 29 'If artificial flavoring, coloring, chemical preservative, stating fact: impracticable, established promulgated Administrator. (g) (i) coloring butter, cheese, ice cream.' 30 contrast 502(f)'s applies interstate, restricted classes preservatives. simpler. proviso confers exemption does Under latter exempt ground impracticable. weigh business convenience health. finds create devices. Health security first, exclusive, criterion. 31 dispense broadly. criterion becomes impracticable' than, 'where (adequate use) Practical considerations manufacturers retailers, irrelevant become controlling 403(k). rigid invariable apart greatly narrower latter. difficulty candies explains difference provisos.4 32 differences, provisos, problem enforcement. selective magnified conversely allowed exemptions. What perhaps important, provisos relevant enforcement His duty cast mandatory terms. Whether forced mandamus situations, failure seem duty. Obviously instances 'impracticable' 'necessary obviously prosecution. courts entitled take called punish violations. authors legislation expressly 'technical, innocent frequently arise.' S.Rep.No. 152, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 4. words, wording, nevertheless immune situation arises, often virtue discharge before dealer's questioned place, my judgment matter court's prosecution proceed. Whenever appear innocent' one, stopped. hesitated retroactive administrative determination private rights unusual course seemed appropriate solution determination. Addison Holly Hill Fruit Products, 322 607, 1215, 1488, 153 1007. permissible civil litigation, greater analogous step taking officer's commanded action, taken, impossible. 35 occupies jeopardy druggist, identical two, amounts creating supposed dilemma false. restrictions, case, rule candy, join effect. 36 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 37 pages determine statute, hardly runs read, reads read. Generalities regarding 'clear meaning' 'clear.' barely faces what, balance considerations, seems me rendering 52 1040, 1042, U.S.C. 331(k), 331(k). doubtr elates 'alteration, obliteration, removal of, cosmetic.' Here decisive unit putting bag, cosmetic, context setting 301(k).1 38 bearing answer question, jar, paper jar Before reach discretion exercised prosecuting determined anything prosecute. Therefore, off day store grocery throughout land, places hazard simple equal force, phrase, insofar labeled. See 602 39 conjunction prohibition calls 'or rest sentence due deeply concerned welfare citizens transactions peculiarly enforcing powers. considered, read radiates loose namely disregard 'a sum omitting figures added. nothing including excerpt Report reliance placed, slightest inferring entirety pertaining food. statute—the means achieved sheds precisely light differentiations derive interpolations construction. expressions 40 approach affirm below. 41 REED Justc JACKSON dissent. 'Sec. 301. following causing hereby prohibited: '(k) inscription appeared use: 'Caution.—To prescription physician.' constitute regulation issued pursuant C.F.R.Cum.Supp. 2.106(b) (3). 502(f)(2) danger: 'Warning.—In individuals Sulfathiazole cause severe toxic reactions. Daily blood anemia leukopenia urine examinations hematuria recommended. 'Physicians familiarize product administered. circular contraindications furnished request.' H.Rep. 2139, 3d Sess., 3. E.g., 403(a), 502(a) 602(a) language. S.Rep.No.361, 74th 19. H.R.Rep.No.2139, 8. 'The likewise establishment packages assorted naming ingredients appearance predominance weight where, good manufacturing practice, declaration applicable, example, confections, normal practices vary package identity relative proportions packages.' S.Rep.No.493, 73d 2d (1912). discussed 403(i), 403(k); discussion brings sort

Category: 7