Document: 335 U.S. 345 69 S.Ct. 106 93 L.Ed. 52 KORDELv.UNITED STATES. No. 30. Argued Oct. 14, 1948. Decided Nov. 22, Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, See 900, 298. Mr. Arthur D. Herrick, of New York City, for petitioner. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., respondent. Opinion the Court by Justice DOUGLAS, announced REED. 1 This case and United States v. Urbuteit, 355, 112, decided this day, are here on certiorari to resolve a conflict among circuits in construction Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act June 25, 1938. Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 2 Kordel was charged informations containing twenty counts introducing or delivering introduction into interstate commerce misbranded drugs. He tried without jury, found guilty, fined two hundred dollars each count, 66 F.Supp. 538. judgment affirmed appeal. 164 F.2d 913. 3 writes lectures health foods from information derived studies public private libraries. Since 1941 he has been marketing his own food products, which appear be compounds various vitamins, minerals herbs. The alleged misbranding consists statements circulars pamphlets distributed consumers vendors relating their efficacy. petitioner supplies these as well products vendors. Some literature displayed stores petitioner's were sale. it given away with sale products; some sold independently drugs; mailed customers 4 It is undisputed that shipped caused both drugs lite ature. Seven same cartons. involved other separately at different times—both before after shipments they associated. question whether separate shipment saved being within meaning presents main issue case. 5 Section 301(a) prohibits any drug adulterated misbranded.1 according 502(a) if its 'labeling false misleading particular' unless labeling bears 'adequate directions use'. 502(f). term defined 201(m) mean 'all labels2 written, printed, graphic matter (1) upon article containers wrappers, (2) accompanying such article.' 303 makes violation provisions crime.3 6 In had common origin destination. used explained uses. Nowhere else purchaser advised how use them. constituted an essential supplement label attached package. Thus interdependent, Appeals observed. 7 would take extremely narrow reading hold not misbranded. A criminal law read expansively include what plainly embraced language statute (United Resnick, 299 .S. 207, 57 126, 81 127; Kraus & Bros. States, 327 614, 621, 622, 705, 707, 708, 90 894), since purpose fairly apprise men boundaries prohibited action then defeated. Sullivan, 332 689, 693, 68 331, 334; Winters People State York, 333 507, 665. But there no canon against using sense law, so strained technical constructions do defeat creating exceptions loopholes it. Roschen Ward, 279 337, 339, 49 336, 73 722. 8 would, indeed, create obviously wide loophole container but left next preceding mail. high protect who under present conditions largely unable themselves field4 easily administrative agency enforcement5 restricted construction.6 textual structure agreeable Accordingly, we conclude phrase 'accompanying article' labels package transported. 9 first clause 201(m)—all 'upon wrappers'—clearly embraces advertising. descriptive goes articles second article'—has specific reference packages, contents did predecessor statute. Cases 239 510, 513, 515, 36 190, 191, 192, 60 411, %.l.r.a./ 1916D, 164. includes contained 'upon' wrapper container. does say container,' see reason additional words text. 10 One thing accompanied another when supplements explains it, manner committee report Congress accompanies bill. No physical attachment one necessary. relationship significant. analogy obvious. We need labor point. 11 designed distribution drug, used. fact went mail wholly irrelevant judge transaction result. And prior subsequent disproves 'is' introduced 301(a), overlook integrated nature transactions established 12 Moreover, booklets carried selling price immaterial facts shown here. As stated Appeals, nonetheless interdependent; parts program. cannot circumvented easy device 'sale' advertising where performs function labeling. 13 Petitioner points out t e evolution ban eliminated, control over transferred Trade Commission. 114, 15 55(a), 55(a). have searched legislative history vain, however, find indication eliminate Every advertisement. wrappers. said, contiguity unnecessary 201(m)(2). 14 There suggestion offense falls 301(k) while held commerce.7 contain charge, therefore claimed must reversed. agree. broad sweep, those introduce deliver commerce.8 supra. Nor confined adulteration 301(a). Id. is, cases commerce; and, unlike reach situations manufacturer sells directly consumer. Cf. Hence disturb statutory scheme refuse included order leave service 301(k). respect longer. Such transfer new hiatus thus pattern discern considered objections tendered them merit. 16 Affirmed. 17 BLACK, whom FRANKFURTER, MURPHY JACKSON concur, dissenting. 18 I agree Court's interpretation Act. These sections together provide definition 'misbranding' either placed advise drug. may, statute, 'accompany,' go along with, journey even though carton, train, mail, delivered day. agreements settle all problems 19 purport make foregoing federal offense. Congressional power pass based clause. Consequently only bear statutorily relationships commerce. For illustration, person thereafter commerce, Act, whatever might state law. 20 pointed Drug creates several offenses depends relationshi forbids 'introduction delivery commerce' 301(b) 'in commerce'; 301(c) 'receipt' 'held commerce'. conviction rests, charge 'when' drugs, 'misbranded * appearing bulletins accompanying' 'were misleading.' (Emphasis supplied.) evidence thirteen showed 'introduced' shipment, fair word 'accompanied' printed relied 'labeling.' count July 10, 1942, said 'labels' sent year half later, January 18, 1944. Thus, distinct proves offense, any, 301(k), shipment. 22 seems me crime should subsequently misbranded, long eighteen months later judicial justified part ground created holding covered congressionally If believes, limited will direct punishment sale, rewrite broaden coverage. hiatus, fill desires. While doubt wisdom separating done, remember dangers splitting up many offenses. Blockburger 284 299, 304, 305, 180, 182, 76 306. 23 serious $200 total $4,000, maximum allowable $1,000 per imprisonment year, three years circumstances. 303(a). approach field penal regulation cautious. defining marked precision. think exercise similar caution conduct patently fits sale' 24 reverse insofar rests Government failed prove relevant reads follows: 'The following acts causing thereof hereby prohibited: '(a) food, device, cosmetic '(b) '(c) receipt proffered pay otherwise. '(k) alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, removal whole of, doing act to, cosmetic, done results misbranded.' 'a display immediate article'. 201(k). 'Sec. 303. (a) Any violates section shall guilty misdemeanor subject more than fine $1,000, fine; committed become final years, $10,000, fine. Notwithstanding subsection section, 301, intent defraud mislead, penalty fine.' informations, charging violations allege 'with defraud'. both. Prosecution authorized (see Duke 492, 835, 1243) Rule 7(a) Rules Criminal Procedure, Dotterweich, 320 277, 280, 64 134, 136, 88 48; supra, page 696, pages 335, 336. 701 201(c); 1940 Reorg. Plan IV, 12, 54 231, 133u, 133u. Security Agency (21 C.F.R.Cum.Supp. 2.2) ruled: 'Labeling time commerce.' note 1, described H.R.Rep.No.2139, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. (1938), 'In extend protection contemplated full extent constitutionally possible, paragraph (k) inserted prohibiting changing misbrand shipment.'

Category: 7