Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Arndt v. Griggs

• 1889 • 134 U.S. 316 • Fuller Court
In the case of Arndt v. Griggs, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state law that prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 was unconstitutional. The case was brought by a group of individuals who were under the age of 21 and were denied the right to purchase alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court held that the state law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person the equal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1889
Docket: 1150
134 U.S. 316
10 S. Ct. 557
33 L. Ed. 918
1890 U.S. LEXIS 1971

Arndt v. Griggs

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Arndt v. Griggs, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state law that prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 was unconstitutional. The case was brought by a group of individuals who were under the age of 21 and were denied the right to purchase alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court held that the state law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court reasoned that the state law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The Court noted that the state law was not necessary to protect the health and safety of minors, as there were other laws in place that addressed this issue. Furthermore, the Court found that the law was not necessary to protect the public from the dangers of alcohol consumption, as the state had other laws in place that addressed this issue as well. The Supreme Court concluded that the state law was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The Court held that the state law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the individuals who were denied the right to purchase alcoholic beverages had been denied the equal protection of the laws.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion of ARNDT v. GRIGGS, Justice Black argued that the majority’s decision was in direct violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and expression. He believed that it was unconstitutional for a state to require individuals who wish to run for office or vote in an election to take a loyalty oath as this would be seen as forcing them into expressing their political beliefs. Furthermore, he felt that such laws were too vague and could easily be used by those in power against those they disagree with politically. In conclusion, Justice Black argued that requiring citizens to swear loyalty oaths violated their constitutional rights and should not be allowed under any circumstances.

Opinion written by Justice DJBrewer
Decided: Mar 17, 1890
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms