Hammer v Dagenhart

Notes for Week 8

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed. 1101

Majority: Day, McReynolds, Pitney, Van Devanter, CJ (Chief Justice) White.
Dissenting- Holmes, Brandeis, Clarke, McKenna.

Background: The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 forbade the shipment in interstate commerce of products of child labor. Dagenhart sued on behalf oh his freedom to allow his 14 year old son to work in a textile mill.

Major Constitutional Question: Does the congressional act regulating child labor violate the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

DECISON: Yes.

Author: Justice Day.

Opinion of the Court: Production is not subject to regulation, because it is not a part of commerce. The regulation of production is a power "not expressly delegated to the U.S." (Day) but reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment