## Facts

- Dr. Doremus, a registered physician who paid the federal tax required by the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act, was indicted in federal district court for violating § 2 of the Act.
- The indictment alleged that Doremus distributed heroin to Ameris without using the required federal order form.
- A second count alleged the distribution was not in the course of professional practice or treatment of disease, but to satisfy Ameris’s addiction.
- The district court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the indictment, holding § 2 unconstitutional as an invasion of state police power and not a genuine revenue measure.
- The United States sought Supreme Court review under the Criminal Appeals Act after the statute underlying the prosecution was held invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether § 2 of the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
2. Whether a statute with substantial regulatory effects in a field traditionally regulated by the states is unconstitutional when enacted as part of a federal tax scheme.
3. Whether § 2’s order-form, recordkeeping, and professional-practice limitations were reasonably related to enforcing the tax and registration system in § 1.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and upheld § 2 as constitutional.
- The Court held that § 2 bore a reasonable relation to enforcing the tax imposed by § 1 and therefore fell within Congress’s taxing power.
- The Court ruled that legislative motive and regulatory effect do not invalidate a tax measure so long as the provisions are reasonably connected to tax enforcement.
- Chief Justice White dissented, reasoning that § 2 functioned as police regulation rather than a revenue measure.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may enact excise-tax legislation that includes regulatory devices if the provisions are reasonably related to the assessment or enforcement of the tax.
- A statute is not unconstitutional merely because it affects conduct also subject to state police regulation.
- Legislative purpose other than raising revenue, or the statute’s regulatory consequences, does not defeat constitutionality when the measure can be sustained as an exercise of the taxing power.
- Differentiating between taxed commercial handlers (required to register and pay a special tax) and untaxed consumers supports characterizing the law as a revenue measure rather than a direct police regulation of users.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the Harrison Act’s order-form and recordkeeping regime as a permissible means of enforcing a federal excise-tax system, confirming that tax measures may have strong regulatory effects without exceeding Congress’s enumerated taxing power.


United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919)