In this case Duckworth challenged the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute, which required a permit to transport liquor through the state for interfering with interstate commerce. The majority of the court upheld the statute because it merely regulated the transportation of liquor through the state, protecting the state’s interest in preventing unlawful distribution of liquor through reasonable means. Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, believing that the statute was constitutional because the provision applied only to the transportation of liquor. Jackson felt that drafting the decision around interstate commerce would increase the federal government’s power in regulating interstate commerce unnecessarily.
In this case Duckworth challenged the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute, which required a permit to transport liquor through the state for interfering with interstate commerce. The majority of the court upheld the statute because it merely regulated the transportation of liquor through the state, protecting the state’s interest in preventing unlawful distribution of liquor through reasonable means. Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, believing that the statute was constitutional because the provision applied only to the transportation of liquor. Jackson felt that drafting the decision around interstate commerce would increase the federal government’s power in regulating interstate commerce unnecessarily.