Leary v. United States

{{#invoke:infobox|infoboxTemplate | italic title = | bodyclass = scotus ib-court-case | templatestyles = Infobox court case/styles.css

| above = Leary v. United States | aboveclass = fn | image = {{#if:|[[File:{{{image}}}|image=|size=|sizedefault=frameless|upright=0.82|alt= }} | autoheaders = yes | caption =

| label1 = Court | data1 = United States Supreme Court

| label2 = Full case name | data2 =

| label3 = Argued | data3 =

| label4 = Reargued | data4 =

| label5 = Submitted | data5 =

| label6 = Indictment | data6 =

| label7 = Started | data7 =

| label8 = Decided | data8 = May 19, 1969

| label9 = Docket nos. | data9 =

| label10 = Verdict | data10 =

| label11 = Defendant | data11 =

| label12 = Charge | data12 =

| label13 = Prosecution | data13 =

| label14 = Counsel for plaintiff | data14 =

| label15 = Plaintiff | data15 =

| label16 = Defence | data16 =

| label17 = Witnesses | data17 =

| label18 = Citation | data18 = 395 U.S. 6; 89 S. Ct. 1532; 23 L. Ed. 2d 57; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2447

| label19 = ECLI | data19 =

| label20 = Neutral citation | data20 =

| label21 = Reported at | data21 =

| label22 = Transcript | data22 =

| label23 = Claim | data23 =

| label24 = Cases cited | data24 =

| label25 = Legislation cited | data25 =

| header27 = Case history

| label28 = Prior action | data28 = Conviction for violation of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

| label29 = Appealed from | data29 =

| label30 = Appealed to | data30 =

| label31 = Subsequent action | data31 =

| label32 = Procedural history | data32 =

| label33 = Related action | data33 =

| label34 = Argument | data34 =

| label35 = Reargument | data35 =

| label36 = Opinion announcement | data36 =

| header42 = Outcome | data43 =

| header44 = Questions presented | data45 =

| header46 = Holding | data47 =

| header48 = Ruling | data49 =

| header52 = Court membership | label53 = Judges sitting | data53 = Warren E. Burger, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall, Hugo Black

| label54 = Chief judge | data54 =

| label55 = Associate judges | data55 =

| header56 = Case opinions | data57 = The Marihuana Tax Act was deemed unconstitutional as it required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment.

| data58 =

| label59 = Decision by | data59 =

| label60 = Majority | data60 =

| label61 = Majority | data61 =

| label62 = Majority | data62 =

| label63 = Plurality | data63 =

| label64 = Plurality | data64 =

| label65 = Plurality | data65 =

| label66 = Plurality | data66 =

| label67 = Seriatim opinion | data67 =

| label68 = Seriatim opinion | data68 =

| label69 = Seriatim opinion | data69 =

| label70 = Seriatim opinion | data70 =

| label71 = Seriatim opinion | data71 =

| label72 = Concurrence | data72 =

| label73 = Concurrence | data73 =

| label74 = Concurrence | data74 =

| label75 = Concurrence | data75 =

| label76 = Concurrence | data76 =

| label77 = Concurrence | data77 =

| label78 = Concurrence | data78 =

| label79 = Concurrence | data79 =

| label80 = Concur/dissent | data80 =

| label81 = Concur/dissent | data81 =

| label82 = Concur/dissent | data82 =

| label83 = Concur/dissent | data83 =

| label84 = Concur/dissent | data84 =

| label85 = Concur/dissent | data85 =

| label86 = Concur/dissent | data86 =

| label87 = Concur/dissent | data87 =

| label88 = Dissent | data88 =

| label89 = Concurrence | data89 =

| label90 = Dissent | data90 =

| label91 = Concurrence | data91 =

| label92 = Dissent | data92 =

| label93 = Concurrence | data93 =

| label94 = Dissent | data94 =

| label95 = Concurrence | data95 =

| label96 = Dissent | data96 =

| data97 =

| header98 = Laws applied

| data99 =

| data100 =

| data101 =

| data102 =

| data103 =

| data104 =

| data105 =

| data106 =

| data107 =

| header108 = Keywords | data109 = Marihuana Tax Act, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, self-incrimination

| header110 = Area of law | data111 =

}}

Leary v. United States (395 U.S. 6) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. This case is significant in the context of United States constitutional law and its implications on drug policy and the rights of individuals under the Fifth Amendment.

Background

Timothy Leary, a well-known psychologist and advocate for the use of psychedelic substances, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Leary challenged the act, arguing that it required self-incrimination, which conflicted with the Fifth Amendment.

Case

The case reached the Supreme Court after Leary was convicted by a lower court. His appeal was based on the argument that the Marihuana Tax Act effectively forced him to reveal his possession of marijuana in order to comply with the law, thereby incriminating himself.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, agreed with Leary. The Court's opinion, delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, stated that the act's requirements would indeed force individuals to incriminate themselves, as one could not comply with the act without admitting to possession of drugs, which itself was a criminal offense under other federal laws.

Impact

The ruling in Leary v. United States led to the repeal of the Marihuana Tax Act and influenced legislation related to drug policy and the rights of the accused. It also had a significant impact on the legal interpretations of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

See also

• Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• War on Drugs
• United States Supreme Court cases

   This article is a  stub. You can help WikiMD by expanding it!