Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1918

Hammer v. Dagenhart

247 U.S. 251 | 38 S. Ct. 529 | 62 L. Ed. 1101 | 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1907 | 3 A.L.R. 649

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, the Court held that Congress could not use its commerce power to impose child-labor standards on local production by banning the interstate shipment of the resulting goods; the decision was later overruled by United States v. Darby.

Background

Congress enacted the Child Labor Act of 1916, which barred interstate and foreign shipment of goods produced in mines employing children under sixteen or in manufacturing establishments employing children under fourteen. It also covered factory goods produced where children aged fourteen to sixteen worked excessive hours, excessive days, or prohibited night hours during the preceding thirty days.

A North Carolina father, suing for himself and as next friend of his two minor sons employed at a Charlotte cotton mill, sought to enjoin enforcement of the Act. The federal district court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce authorized it to prohibit interstate shipment of ordinary goods because they were produced with child labor.

Holding

No. The Child Labor Act exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Reasoning

The Court distinguished cases in which Congress had prohibited interstate transportation of lottery tickets, impure foods and drugs, women transported for prostitution, and intoxicating liquor. In those cases, the prohibited articles or transactions themselves were harmful, and barring their use of interstate channels was a way to regulate commerce and prevent the evil associated with that commerce.

The goods covered by the Child Labor Act were harmless articles of commerce. The statute did not target a harmful feature of their transportation; instead, it denied interstate access to manufacturers in order to compel compliance with Congress's preferred rules governing child labor in production.

Manufacturing and mining, the Court reasoned, are local activities rather than commerce. Goods do not enter interstate commerce merely because their owner plans to ship them across state lines; commerce begins when their interstate transfer actually commences, such as upon delivery to a carrier. Allowing federal control over all production intended for interstate shipment would, in the Court's view, place virtually all manufacturing under federal authority.

Nor could Congress justify the measure as a response to unfair competition from states with weaker child-labor protections. Different state labor rules and economic conditions may create competitive advantages, but the Commerce Clause does not give Congress a general power to equalize those differences by excluding goods from interstate trade.

Issue #2

Whether the Act impermissibly invaded powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Holding

Yes. By using an interstate-shipment ban to dictate child-labor conditions within factories and mines, the Act intruded on a matter reserved to state authority.

Reasoning

The Court treated rules governing the employment of children in local mines and factories as part of the states' police power over their internal trade, manufacturing, and labor conditions. Although child labor was widely recognized as a serious problem and state regulation might be imperfect or nonuniform, the federal government possessed only enumerated powers.

In the Court's view, the statute's natural and reasonable effect was to establish federal standards for the ages and working hours of children employed within the states. Congress could not accomplish indirectly, through a ban on interstate shipment, what it lacked authority to command directly in the regulation of local production.

The Court emphasized that preserving the division between national and state power was central to the constitutional structure. Upholding this form of federal regulation, it warned, would permit Congress to control local matters simply by conditioning access to interstate commerce, threatening to eliminate the states' authority over local affairs.

Dissents

Justice Holmes

Reasoning

Justice Holmes, joined by Justices McKenna, Brandeis, and Clarke, argued that the statute directly regulated only interstate and foreign commerce: it prohibited the shipment of specified goods across state lines. Because the Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate that commerce, and regulation includes prohibition, the statute fell within Congress's expressly delegated authority.

In Holmes's view, a law otherwise within an enumerated federal power does not become unconstitutional merely because it has an obvious indirect effect on matters that states may regulate directly. Congress could prohibit interstate transportation even if the practical result was to influence production practices within a state.

He relied on precedents sustaining federal prohibitions and restrictions affecting interstate commerce, including the Lottery Case, federal food-and-drug laws, and laws regulating interstate transportation for prostitution. Those decisions, he argued, did not make Congress's authority depend on whether judges considered the transported item intrinsically harmful.

Holmes rejected the majority's attempt to distinguish child-labor goods from other prohibited articles by moral category. Whether interstate shipment should be forbidden because it encourages child labor was a policy judgment for Congress, not the Court. States remained free to regulate their internal affairs, but once goods entered interstate commerce, Congress could apply the national public policy it considered necessary for the welfare of the country as a whole.