Hammer v. Dagenhart- Child labor

t Day1918. SCt was relatively hostile to congressional interference with the employer-employee relationship.

t Holding. By 5-4 vote, SCt struck down a federal statute which prohibited the interstate transport of articles produced by companies which employed children younger than certain ages or under certain conditions.

t Rationale. Power to regulate commerce does not mean power to stop commerce from moving. Congress’ power to prohibit exists only if goods are not ordinary commodities. Majority distinguished this statute from other police power/commerce-prohibiting statutes which the SCt upheld; in those cases, the SCt argued, the interstate transportation being prohibited was part of the very evil sought to be prohibited (e.g. the prohibition on the interstate shipment of lotterytickets, where the tickets themselves were viewed as evil.) Here, by contrast, the goods shipped in interstate commerce were themselves harmless; it was only the employment of child labor which was an evil, and this employment was not directly related to interstate commerce.

n Powers reserved to states. The majority reasoned further that if a prohibition on interstate commerce were permitted in this situation, all manufacturing intended for interstate shipment would be brought under federal control, encroaching unconstitutionally on the authority of the states.

t Holmes’ dissent. But it was the classic dissent by Holmes that in the long run became the more significant opinion in Hammer. Holmes argued that so long as the congressional regulation falls within power specifically given to the Congress (here, the power to regulate interstate commerce), the fact that it has a collateral effect upon local activities otherwise left to state control does not render the statute unconstitutional.

n 10th Amendmentof no force. Thus Holmes’ dissent implicitly rejected the 10th Amendmentas a source of limitations on federal authority – so long as congressional action technically comes within a constitutionally-enumerated power, it is valid no matter how substantially it impairs the states’ ability to regulate what would otherwise be local affairs. This highly restrictive view of the 10th Amendment became the majority view beginning 1937 and has endured to the present.

t Koppelman.

n Given Lottery Case, this case probably is pretext decision following McCullochdictum. Congress was really trying to regulate intrastate transaction that had nothing to do with commerce.

(1) C/A. Child labor poses disadvantages economically to other states. Majority responded USC wanted to foster competition among states.

n Critiqueof case’s reasoning. SC seems to be arrogating to itself power to say what goods are or are not in themselves harmless. Child labor has not traditionally been regarded as regulable in way that lotteries were.

(1) C/A. SC needed to establish lines to prevent Congress from exerting police power.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 917