Hammer v. Dagenhart

Definition

Hammer v. Dagenhart is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1918 that ruled the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act unconstitutional, stating that Congress could not regulate child labor under the Commerce Clause. The case is significant as it highlighted the limitations of federal power in regulating local industry and the balance of power between state and federal governments.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.
2. The case was argued by prominent lawyers, including former President William Howard Taft, who supported the law's constitutionality.
3. The ruling emphasized the importance of states' rights, asserting that regulating child labor was a power reserved for the states rather than the federal government.
4. Hammer v. Dagenhart set a precedent for later cases regarding federal regulation of economic activities and marked a significant setback for progressive reformers advocating for labor rights.
5. The decision effectively nullified federal efforts to address child labor until later legislative measures were introduced during the New Deal era.

Review Questions

• What were the main legal arguments presented in Hammer v. Dagenhart regarding federal vs. state power?
  • In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the main legal arguments revolved around the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause versus states' rights. The plaintiffs argued that regulating child labor was essential for protecting children and promoting fair competition, while the defense contended that such regulation fell outside federal authority and should be managed by individual states. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Dagenhart, reinforcing states' rights and limiting federal intervention in local labor practices.
• Discuss the implications of Hammer v. Dagenhart on future legislation concerning labor rights in the United States.
  • Hammer v. Dagenhart had significant implications for future legislation concerning labor rights, as it curtailed federal authority to regulate child labor until the New Deal era. The ruling demonstrated that attempts to legislate labor protections at a national level could be challenged on constitutional grounds, leading to a hesitance in Congress to pass similar laws. It wasn't until later reforms and changes in judicial interpretation that effective federal regulations on child labor were eventually established.
• Evaluate how Hammer v. Dagenhart reflects the broader themes of federalism and the balance of powers in American governance.
  • Hammer v. Dagenhart serves as an important case study in understanding federalism and the balance of powers within American governance. The ruling underscored the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority, highlighting how different interpretations of the Constitution can lead to significant shifts in policy-making power. By restricting Congress's ability to regulate child labor through interstate commerce, this case not only affected labor rights but also illustrated the enduring challenges in navigating the complex relationship between state and federal governments in shaping social policy.

Related terms

Commerce Clause: A clause in the U.S. Constitution granting Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes.

Keating-Owen Child Labor Act: A 1916 law aimed at prohibiting the sale of goods produced by factories that employed children under a certain age, reflecting early efforts to regulate child labor at the federal level.

Federalism: A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, such as states.