GOVT 550 - Seminar in American Politics
Supreme Court Case Summaries
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Facts of the Case:
The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Roland Dagenhart,
the owner of a cotton mill in Charlotte, NC, filed suit in federal court upon damages suffered as a result of the Act.
Question:
Is the Keating-Owen Act a proper exercise of Congress’s authority under the terms of Article I Section 8 (specifically, the authority to
regulate interstate commerce), and therefore not a violation of the 10 th Amendment?
Decision:
No. Morals regulation is a species of police power that was not conferred upon Congress by Article I, Section 8, and therefore
reserved to the states under the terms of the 10th Amendment. However, what makes this case complicated is the commercial
dimension. The Court had previously drawn a distinction between the manufacture of goods that may or may not be morally
injurious, and the regulation of such goods found in the stream of interstate commerce. In prior cases, the Court held that it was
Congress’s prerogative to regulate lottery schemes, prostitution, and liquor, but only because these goods had been transported
across state lines for commercial purposes. In those cases, Congress’s reach into the area of police powers (regulation of morals)
was permitted under cover of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), but not without controversy because of the nature of
Congress’s intent. In Hammer, the issue was the manufacture of cotton, a good whose use is not immoral, and which does not itself
touch upon interstate commerce. The Court was then faced with an unambiguous instance of morals regulation – it was clear to the
majority that it was obviously not Congress’s intent in the first place to regulate interstate commerce, but to produce, by uniform
nationalization of labor laws, a regulation of morality. The Court therefore refused to provide cover for a federal police power
created by legislative fiat; the Keating-Owen Act was too conspicuous in its attempt to circumvent the limits on Congress’s authority.
5 votes for Dagenhart, 4 vote(s) against
U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941):
Facts of the Case:
In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to regulate many aspects of employment including minimum wages,
maximum weekly hours, and child labor. Corporations which engaged in interstate commerce or produced goods which were sold in
other states could be prosecuted under the statute.
Question:
Is the Fair Labor Standards Act a proper exercise of Congress’s authority under the terms of Article I Section 8 (specifically, the
authority to regulate interstate commerce), and therefore not a violation of the 10th Amendment?
Decision:
Yes. The unanimous Court affirmed the right of Congress to exercise “to its utmost extent” the “plenary” power granted to it under
the Commerce Clause, provided such powers do not infringe some specific Constitutional prohibition (such as might be found, for
example, in the Bill of Rights). In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Harland Stone argued that the “motive and purpose of a regulation
of interstate commerce are matters for the legislative judgment . . . over which the courts are given no control.” In saying that the
intent of Congress is beyond the Court’s purview, this case 1) removes the question of morals legislation from the judicial calculus,
and 2) effectively limits Congress’s power only to those arenas of activity in which there is no interstate commercial dimension,
thereby broadening this power considerably. Hammer v. Dagenhart is thereby overturned.
Unanimous for the United States