George Michael Thompson
Hammer v. Dagenhart
Supreme Court of the United States, 1918
247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed2d. 1101
Votes: 8-1
Majority Opinion: Justice Day
Dissenting: Justice Holmes
Not Participating: None
Facts: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 banned the shipment of products made in factories that employed children under the age of 14 or allowed children between the ages of 14-16 to work more than eight hours a day. Roland Dagenhart an employee along with his two minor sons in a North Carolina cotton mill filed a complaint in district court seeking to enjoin the act which he viewed was unconstitutional. The district court held that it was unconstitutional, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statue or Provision of the Constitution in question: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916
Questions:
1. Is the Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 unconstitutional?
Holding:
1. Yes
Reasoning: The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing this act as the issue of child labor was a purely local matter to which the federal government had no authority over. Commerce consists of intercourse and traffic the making or mining of goods is not commerce, and considering that the goods being shipped were of themselves harmless Congress could not clearly state they were regulating commerce when passing the act. The Court also stated that even thought it can be claimed that differing child labor laws among the states creates unfair competition, Congress has no power that allows it to exercise its regulatory power so as to prevent unfair competition. If such an act was upheld Congress would in essence have the authority to regulate all commerce even those delegated to the local authority and thus states would lose control over all local matters.
Res Judicata: Congress does not have the authority to regulate commerce of a purely local