In Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a case involving the ratification process for constitutional amendments. The plaintiff, Dillon, argued that his conviction under the National Prohibition Act was invalid because he believed that there should be a time limit within which an amendment must be ratified to become part of the Constitution and that this had not been met in relation to 18th Amendment (which established prohibition). However, in its decision issued in 1920, the court upheld his conviction and stated that Congress has discretion to set a reasonable time frame for ratification of constitutional amendments. The court also noted it is permissible for such timeframe to extend beyond one session of Congress if necessary. This ruling confirmed both Congressional authority over setting timelines for amendment ratifications as well as validating enforcement laws tied with those amendments.

In the case of Dillon v. Gloss, there was no recorded dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress had the authority to set a seven-year time limit for ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition). This decision affirmed that amendments proposed by Congress become valid as part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures within any reasonable period that Congress might fix.