Hammer v. Dagenhart
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Overruled
- Overruled by United States v. Darby (1941)suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions, p. 2447: United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) — Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
The Act of September 1, 1916, c. 432, 39 Stat. 675, prohibits transportation in interstate commerce of goods made at a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal therefrom, children under the age of 14 years have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of 14 and 16 years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 P. m. or before the hour of 6 A. M. Held, unconstitutional as exceeding the commerce power of Congress and invading the powers reserved to the States.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
The power to regulate interstate commerce is the power to prescribe the rule by which the commerce is to be governed; in other words, to control the means by which it is carried on.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
The court has never sustained a right to exclude save in cases where the character of the particular things excluded was such as to bring them peculiarly within the governmental authority of the State or Nation and render their exclusion, in effect, but a regulation of interstate transportation, necessary to prevent the accomplishmentthrough that means of the evils inherent in them.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
The manufacture of goods is not commerce, nor do the facts that they are intended for, and are afterwards shipped in, interstate commerce make their production a part of that commerce subject to the control of Congress.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
The power to regulate interstate commerce was not intended as a means of enabling Congress to equalize the economic conditions in the States for the prevention of unfair competition among them, by forbidating the interstate transportation of goods made under conditions which Congress deems productive of unfairness.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
It was not intended as an authority to Congress to control the States in the exercise of their police power over local trade and manufacture,, always existing and expressly reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Affirmed.
Printed on p. 251 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment Xsuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt10.1, Amdt10.3.2, pp. 1971, 1975.
- Article I, Section 8, Clause 3suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S8.C3.4, ArtI.S8.C3.5.10, ArtI.S8.C3.5.11, pp. 327, 340.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)”:
- overruled by United States v. Darby (table of overruled decisions)
- overruled (table of overruled decisions) and cited on 7 pages