## Facts

- The Washington territorial legislature enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor for any person to “smoke or inhale opium.”
- Ah Lim was charged in King County, Washington, with smoking opium in violation of that statute.
- Ah Lim filed a demurrer to the charging document, arguing that criminalizing opium smoking violated constitutional guarantees of life and liberty (including the pursuit of happiness) and deprived him of liberty without due process of law.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, and Ah Lim was convicted.
- Ah Lim appealed to the territorial supreme court, arguing the legislature lacked authority to criminalize opium smoking and that the statute impermissibly invaded individual liberty.

## Issues

1. Whether the territorial legislature, acting under the Organic Act’s grant of power over “rightful subjects of legislation,” could make smoking or inhaling opium a misdemeanor as an exercise of the police power.
2. Whether the opium-smoking prohibition violated protections of liberty and due process by criminalizing personal conduct that an adult claimed to be free to engage in with his own body and property.

## Decision

- The court upheld the statute criminalizing the smoking or inhaling of opium.
- The court affirmed Ah Lim’s conviction.
- The court reasoned that regulation of opium use falls within the police power as a matter of public health, safety, and morals, and therefore is a “rightful subject of legislation” under the Organic Act.
- Once the subject is within legislative power, the court would not second-guess the extent, severity, or policy wisdom of the prohibition absent a clear constitutional bar.
- A dissenting justice would have placed tighter limits on using the police power to criminalize purely self-regarding conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is presumed constitutional; a court should not declare a law void unless it is convinced of invalidity beyond reasonable doubt.
- Under the Organic Act, the territorial legislature may legislate on all “rightful subjects of legislation”; if the subject is rightful, the means and degree of regulation are primarily for the legislature.
- Police-power enactments aimed at public health, safety, or morals can restrict individual conduct, including conduct the defendant characterizes as private, without necessarily violating due process.
- Courts may not invalidate legislation based on disagreement with policy, expediency, or fairness; the remedy for unwise but constitutional laws is political change rather than judicial nullification.
- Due process and broad liberty guarantees do not create a categorical right to ingest or smoke opium free from legislative prohibition when the legislature has determined the conduct threatens the public welfare.

## Conclusion

The territorial supreme court held that the legislature could criminalize smoking or inhaling opium as a police-power measure and that the law did not violate liberty or due process guarantees. Applying a strong presumption of constitutionality and substantial judicial restraint, the court treated opium prohibition as a “rightful subject of legislation” and affirmed Ah Lim’s conviction, while a dissent expressed concern about extending criminal law to conduct viewed as purely personal.


Territory v. Ah Lim, 24 P. 588 (1890)