In United States v. Innerarity, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor within four miles of a military post was constitutional. The defendant, Innerarity, was charged with violating the statute by selling liquor within the prohibited area. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, finding that Congress had the power to regulate the sale of liquor within four miles of a military post. The Court reasoned that Congress had the power to protect the military from the effects of alcohol, and that the statute was a reasonable exercise of that power. The Court also held that the statute did not violate the defendant's right to due process of law, as the statute was not overly broad or vague. The Court noted that the statute was clear and specific, and that it provided sufficient notice to those who might be affected by it. In conclusion, the Court held that the statute was constitutional and that the defendant had violated it. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the defendant.

In United States v. Innerarity, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that the power of taxation granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution did not extend so far as to allow them to impose taxes on distilled spirits because such an act would be beyond their enumerated powers and thus unconstitutional. Furthermore, he argued that even if they had been given such authority under Article I, any attempt at taxing these items would constitute a direct tax which must be apportioned among states according to population size - something which had not occurred here. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that Congress lacked both the express and implied authority necessary for imposing this particular tax and therefore found it unconstitutional