To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution.

This sentence comes from Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s dissent in a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing whether federal courts should admit evidence obtained through unlawful government conduct. Writing in the Prohibition-era context of aggressive federal enforcement, Brandeis warned that tolerating official lawbreaking to secure convictions would corrode the legitimacy of criminal justice. His dissent argues that courts, by approving such tactics, effectively teach the public that government is above the law—an especially dangerous lesson when the state wields coercive power. The remark is part of a broader defense of judicial integrity and the rule of law in criminal procedure.

Brandeis argues that criminal justice cannot be reduced to a utilitarian calculus in which conviction is the only goal. If the government is permitted to break the law to enforce it, the state becomes a teacher of cynicism: citizens learn that legality is optional for the powerful and that moral ends excuse unlawful means. “Terrible retribution” points to long-term consequences—loss of legitimacy, weakened rule of law, and a cycle of escalating misconduct—rather than merely a bad outcome in a single case. The quote encapsulates a process-based view of justice: lawful methods are not a luxury but the foundation of democratic authority.