Lámar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916). · Go Syfert
Search
Lámar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A district court has jurisdiction over all crimes cognizable under United States authority, as an indictment failing to charge a federal crime affects the merits rather than jurisdiction.

A defendant convicted of falsely pretending to be a member of Congress challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing that the indictment failed to charge a crime against the United States. The court considers whether the failure to charge a substantive federal crime deprives the court of its power to act. The court holds that jurisdiction is a matter of power that covers both right and wrong decisions. Because the District Court has jurisdiction over all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States, the objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.

504 citation events (347 in the last 25 years) across 60 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Tony T. Sweet, 919 S.E.2d 909 (S.C. 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1916 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1916 1971 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 65 Jurisdiction of district court over all federal crimes64 citing cases“the objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the united states goes only to the merits of the case.”15 citing courts quote it · also cited as 60 L. Ed. at 528 · 62 listed here
  • State v. Tony T. Sweet, 919 S.E.2d 909 (S.C. 2025).published
    (The objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case [and not to subject matter jurisdiction].)
  • Hinkle v. United States, No. 8:14-cv-02677 (D. Md. Aug. 16, 2022). 4 cites
    (The objection 3 The Court assumes that Hinkle refers to the Superseding Information when he uses the term “Indictment.” that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of t…)
  • Gordon v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00371 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2021).
    (The objection that indictment does not charge 4 a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • Orozco v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00240 (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2021).
    (The objection that 24 indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • Smith v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00374 (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2021).
    (The objection that 6 the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the 7 case.)
  • Guillen v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00275 (D. Nev. Aug. 5, 2020).
    (The objection that 4 indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • Strouble v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01128 (D. Nev. Aug. 5, 2020).
    (The objection that 6 indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • Bueno v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01114 (D. Nev. Aug. 5, 2020).
    (The objection that 4 indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • United States v. Bernard Moore, 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020).published
    (The objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • Omar Khadr v. United States, 67 F.4th 413 (D.C. Cir. 2023).published
    ([T]he substantive sufficiency of the indictment is a question that goes to the merits of the case.)
Show 52 more citing cases
  • Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014).published 3 cites
    (The objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.)
  • United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2012).published 2 cites
    See also Lamar, 240 U.S. at 64 , 36 S.Ct. 255 (“Jurisdiction is a matter of power, and covers wrong as well as right decisions.”).
  • Donald Wilson v. State of Mississippi, No. 2024-CA-00686-COA (Miss. Ct. App. July 28, 2026).published
    The Court explained that a federal trial court has “jurisdiction” of all indictments for federal crimes, and an “objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case,” not the…
  • Alan Dorrbecker v. Kevin Howard, 173 F.4th 142 (4th Cir. 2026).published 2 cites
    A federal court “acts equally within its jurisdiction whether it decides a man to be guilty or innocent under the criminal law, and whether its decision is right or wrong.” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916); see Moran, 70 F.4t…
  • Gray 14672-040 v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, No. 1:24-cv-00580 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2024).
    Mich. Sept. 15, 2022), ECF No. 140, PageID.1006-1007.) “[N]othing can be clearer than that the district court . . . has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States[.]” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60,…
  • United States v. Don Woodson Ellis, 115 F.4th 497 (6th Cir. 2024).published
    Id. (quoting Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916)).
  • State v. Singleton, 900 S.E.2d 802 (N.C. 2024).published 2 cites
    “Jurisdiction is a matter of power, and covers wrong as well as right decisions.” Lamar v. U.S., 240 U.S. 60, 64 (1916). “[N]othing can be clearer than that the [trial court], which has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the autho…
  • United States v. Daniel Draper, 84 F.4th 797 (9th Cir. 2023).published
    Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , district courts have subject matter jurisdiction “[i]n every federal criminal prosecution.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003); see United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 , 630-31 (2002) (“[…
  • United States v. Herbert Johnson, No. 20-17302 (9th Cir. July 18, 2023).unpublished
    United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 , 630–31 (2002) (quoting Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916)).
  • United States v. Emilio Moran, 70 F.4th 797 (4th Cir. 2023).published
    Cf. Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916) (“[N]othing can be clearer than that the district court, which has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States, acts equally within its jurisdiction whet…
  • United States v. Mongol Nation, 56 F.4th 1244 (9th Cir. 2023).published
    Because “a district court has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States[,] . . . the objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States”—for instance, by failing to charge a…
  • United States v. Armin Harcevic, 999 F.3d 1172 (8th Cir. 2021).published
    Harcevic asserts that, like the constitutional claim in Class, his assertion of a lawful combatant immunity defense challenges “the very power of the Government to bring the prosecution and secure the conviction.” But this is nothing more…
  • Brown v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01132 (D. Nev. May 10, 2021).
    A claim 16 that “the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits 17 of the case.” Id. at 630–31 (quoting Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916)). 18 Brown’s reliance on two pre-Cotton Ninth…
  • Waters v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01076 (D. Nev. May 3, 2021).
    A claim that “the 18 indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the 19 case.” Id. at 630–31 (quoting Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916)).
  • Mosz v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01089 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2021).
    A claim 18 that “the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits 19 of the case.” Id. at 630-31 (quoting Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916)). 20 Mosz’s reliance on two pre-Cotton Ninth C…
  • Walton v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01100 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2021).
    Walton argues he is entitled to relief because this defect 4 stripped this court of jurisdiction and violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 5 Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief. 6 This court “has jurisdicti…
  • Black v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01140 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2021).
    Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief. 4 This court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 5 States . . . .” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Newman v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01142 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2021).
    Newman argues he is entitled to relief because this defect 4 stripped this court of jurisdiction and violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 5 Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief. 6 This court “has jurisdicti…
  • Carr v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01141 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2021).
    Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief. 6 This court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 7 States . . . .” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Lewis v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01073 (D. Nev. Mar. 9, 2021).
    Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief. 7 This court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 8 States . . . .” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Barro v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00368 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2021).
    Jurisdiction 2 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 3 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Barro v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00369 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2021).
    Jurisdiction 2 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 3 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Kelbch v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00361 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2021).
    Jurisdiction 15 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 16 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Pham v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00277 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2021).
    Jurisdiction 21 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 22 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Brown v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-00842 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2021).
    Jurisdiction 21 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 22 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Boykins v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00278 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2021).
    Jurisdiction 17 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 18 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Carter v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00373 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2020).
    Id. 4 at 26. 5 A. Jurisdiction 6 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 7 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Beach v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-00343 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2020).
    Jurisdiction 14 This Court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 15 States….” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Mills v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01088 (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2020).
    Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief.4 9 This court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 10 States . . . .” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Brown v. United States, No. 2:18-cv-02146 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2020).
    It did not. 5 This court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 6 States . . . .” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Baustamante v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-00841 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2020).
    Neither of these theories warrants § 2255 relief.3 9 This court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United 10 States . . . .” Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916).
  • Hageseth v. Superior Court, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).published
  • Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593 (1926).published
  • Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).published
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania & New York State Dep't of Transp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., R. D. Timpany, Tr. in Reorganization of the Cent. R.R. Co. of New Jersey v. Rail Servs. Plan. Off., State of New Jersey Dep't of Transp., Intervenors, 535 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1976).published
  • United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).published
  • Franklin Mint Corp. v. Franklin Mint, Ltd., 360 F. Supp. 478 (E.D. Pa. 1973).published
  • United States v. Yousef, 750 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2014).published
  • United States v. Hartwell, No. 04-6214 (4th Cir. May 24, 2006).published
  • State v. Dunn, 375 P.3d 332 (Kan. 2016).published
  • Pennsylvania v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 535 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1976).published
  • Brock v. Local 1130, Laborers' Int'l Union, 736 F. Supp. 1566 (E.D. Cal. 1987).published
  • Acosta v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01086 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2020).
  • Hill v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-01125 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2021).
  • United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002).published
  • United States v. Delgado-Garcia, Jose, 374 F.3d 1337 (D.C. Cir. 2004).published
  • United States v. Adam Nicklous Carr, 303 F.3d 539 (4th Cir. 2002).published
  • United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007).published
  • United States v. Rubin, 743 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014).published
  • United States v. Michael St. Hubert, 883 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2018).published
  • United States v. Michael St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir. 2018).published
  • Robertson v. State, 933 So. 2d 1060 (Ala. 2005).published
At page 64 Jurisdiction as a matter of power covering wrong decisions20 citing cases“the court had no jurisdiction because the indictment does not charge a crime against the united states.”9 citing courts quote it · Neutral (citing treatments of this passage)
  • United States v. Richa Narang, No. 19-4850, 2021 WL 3484683 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021).unpublished
    (Jurisdiction is a matter of power and covers wrong as well as right decisions.)
  • United States v. Straker, 800 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2015).published 3 cites
    (Jurisdiction is a matter of power, and covers wrong as well as right decisions.)
  • United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2012).published 2 cites
    (Jurisdiction is a matter of power, and covers wrong as well as right decisions.)
  • State v. Singleton, 900 S.E.2d 802 (N.C. 2024).published 2 cites
    “Jurisdiction is a matter of power, and covers wrong as well as right decisions.” Lamar v. U.S., 240 U.S. 60, 64 (1916). “[N]othing can be clearer than that the [trial court], which has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the autho…
  • United States v. Watkins, No. 2022-0015 (D.D.C. June 28, 2022).published
    Lamar v. United States (Lamar I), 240 U.S. 60, 64 (1916).
  • State of New Jersey Vs. Louis v. Green (15-06-0637, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-3676-17 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 8, 2021).unpublished
    The criminal law does so by prohibiting possession of a CDS classified in one of five schedules, see N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(13), (14), and by defining (1978), we need not reach Green's more debatable proposition that "the constitutionality of…
  • United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2012).published
  • United States v. Steinberg, 62 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1932).published
  • Hageseth v. Superior Court, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).published
  • United States v. Vitillo, No. 05-4330 (3d Cir. June 25, 2007).published
Show 10 more citing cases
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LAMAR
v.
UNITED STATES.[1]
434.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 31, 1916.
Published opinion
240 U.S. 60
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1425
Holmes.
Cited by 98 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (6) · District of Columbia (3) · Wisconsin Supreme Court (2)
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

[*61] The Solicitor General for the United States, in support of the motion.

Mr. Carl E. Whitney and Mr. A. Leo Everett for plaintiff in error in opposition to the motion.

[*64] MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an indictment charging him with having falsely pretended to be an officer of the Government of the United States, to wit, a member of the House of Representatives, that is to say, A. Mitchell Palmer, a member of Congress, with intent to defraud J.P. Morgan & Company and the United States Steel Corporation. The case is brought here directly on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction because the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States, and that the interpretation of the Constitution was involved in the decision that a Congressman is an officer of the United States. There are subsidiary objections stated as constitutional that the indictment is insufficient and that it does not appear in what district the crime was committed.

On the matter of jurisdiction it is said that when the controversy concerns a subject limited by Federal law, such as bankruptcy, Grant Shoe Co. v. Laird, 212 U.S. 445; copyright, Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker, 210 U.S. 356; patents, Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U.S. 479, or admiralty, The Jefferson, 215 U.S. 130, the jurisdiction so far coalesces with the merits that a case not within the law is not within the jurisdiction of the court. The Ira M. Hedges, 218 U.S. 264, 270. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562. Jurisdiction is a matter of power and covers wrong as well as right decisions. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 234, 235. Burnet v. Desmornes, 226 U.S. 145, 147. There may be instances in which it is[*65] hard to say whether a law goes to the power or only to the duty of the court; but the argument is pressed too far. A decision that a patent is bad, either on the facts or on the law, is as binding as one that it is good. The Fair v. Kohler Die Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25. And nothing can be clearer than that the District Court, which has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States (Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, c. 231, § 24, second), acts equally within its jurisdiction whether it decides a man to be guilty or innocent under the criminal law, and whether its decision is right or wrong. The objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.

As to the construction of the Constitution being involved, it obviously is not. The question is in what sense the word `officer' is used in the Criminal Code of March 4, 1909, c. 321, § 32. The same words may have different meanings in different parts of the same act and of course words may be used in a statute in a different sense from that in which they are used in the Constitution. Am. Security & Trust Co. v. Dist. of Col., 224 U.S. 491, 494.

There were fainter suggestions that the defendant's constitutional rights were infringed because the nature of the fraud intended was not set forth and because the State and district wherein the crime was committed were not proved. The indictment is not for defrauding but for personation with intent to defraud; the nature of the fraud intended is not material and even might not yet have been determined. It is not an indictment for a conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States, where the offence intended must be shown to be a substantive crime. It reasonably may be inferred from the evidence that the defendant was tried in the right State and district in fact. If so, his constitutional rights were preserved. The personation was by telephone to a person[*66] in New York (Southern District) and it might be found that the speaker also was in the Southern District; but if not, at all events the personation took effect there. Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 389. These objections are frivolous and the others have been shown to be unfounded. It follows that the writ of error must be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

1 For final decision of this case see 241 U.S. 103.