Case BriefCon law, commerce clause Carlson, 3/7/15Identity of CaseHammer v. Dagenhart (Child Labor Case 1918)Page 202 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryCongress passes a law forbidding the shipment of product in interstate commerce from a factory which employs children under a certain age. A father sues to prevent the enforcement of this law so his children can go on working. Congress learned their lesson from E.C. Knight and tried an indirect approach. Does not forbid child labor (like they forbade monopolies) just can’t child labor and interstate commerce at the same time. Statement of the IssueIs the prohibition against participating in interstate commerce within 30 days of utilizing child labor a valid exercise of power under the commerce clause? HoldingNo. Regulation purports to apply to commerce, but actually applies to manufacturing. ReasoningDistinguished from E.C. Knight: Congress can forbid articles from moving in commerce when they are bad in and of themselves, or when they are used for bad ends (transportation of women for prostitution). But the “bad” nature of manufacturing is too far removed from interstate commerce, and infringes on the police powers of the state to pass laws for the general welfare of children. Evaluation This will effectively be overruled during the new deal era, as the manufacture under unfair conditions has an effect on interstate
View Full Document
Unlocking...