Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Balint Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Defendants sold narcotics without the required federal form. The Supreme Court held that the government did not need to prove the defendants knew the drugs were illegal, establishing a key precedent for strict liability public welfare offenses.
Legal Significance: This case established that for certain “public welfare” statutes intended to protect public health and safety, Congress may omit the traditional mens rea (guilty mind) requirement, creating a strict liability criminal offense.
United States v. Balint Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendants were indicted for violating § 2 of the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. The indictment alleged they unlawfully sold derivatives of opium and coca leaves without receiving a written order on a form issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The defendants demurred to the indictment, arguing it was legally insufficient because it failed to allege they knew the substances they sold were narcotics. The statute itself did not explicitly include a knowledge requirement (scienter) as an element of the offense. The District Court agreed with the defendants and quashed the indictment. The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court, presenting the question of whether mens rea was a necessary element for a conviction under the Act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a conviction under the Narcotic Act of 1914 require the government to prove that the defendant knew the specific character of the drugs being sold, even when the statute does not expressly include such a knowledge requirement?
Reversed. The Narcotic Act does not require the government to prove the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco la
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a conviction under the Narcotic Act of 1914 require the government to prove that the defendant knew the specific character of the drugs being sold, even when the statute does not expressly include such a knowledge requirement?
Conclusion
United States v. Balint is a foundational case in criminal law, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
For statutory crimes that are regulatory in nature and designed to protect Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis a
Legal Analysis
Chief Justice Taft, writing for the Court, acknowledged the general common law Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Narcotic Act of 1914 does not require proof of scienter
