(Federal Judicial System)

1. Identify all the current members of the Supreme Court, identifying the Chief Justice.

2. Read the case (in the photograph) and summarize it.

Case: Hammer vs. Dagenhart (1918).

Helpfuls:

First page says "the case" at the top.

Last page says "majority rules" at the top.

8:51 i 45 .|||| TN e A ) Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) THE CASE As industry expanded and immigrants poured into the country during the first decades of the 20th century, the number of children in the industrial workforce swelled. Children took jobs as miners, messengers, mill workers, and factory employees, and were often forced to work long hours under unsafe conditions for meager pay. By 1910, a majority of states had implemented laws regulating child labor and setting age minimumes in the workplace, but concern over child labor persisted. ~= "1 Viewing the issue as a matter of both morality and public welfare, Congress made several unsuccessful attempts to eradicate what it considered to be abusive child labor practices. Finally, in 1916, ,| Congress passed the Keating-Owen Child Labor Law Act. Because the federal government had no power to regulate working conditions within the states, it used its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to indirectly influence child labor practices. The Keating-Owen Act prohibited manufacturers who relied on unreasonable child labor from transporting their products between states. When the textile mill where Roland Dagenhart and his sons were employed refused to allow Dagenhart's 14-year-old son Reuben to work, Dagenhart turned to the courts. Contending that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the authority to regulate manufacturers, and that the Tenth Amendment prevented the federal government from intervening in labor issues, Dagenhart and his attorneys argued that the Keating- Owen Act was unconstitutional. THE ISSUE In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court was charged with assessing both the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment with respect to the relative powers of federal and state governments. Hammer v. Dagenhart put this question before the Court: Does the authority vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the states allow it to enact legislation targeting manufacturing practices? WHAT DID THE MAJORITY RULE IN THIS CASE? o 8:51 m id (O 2 thirteen.org/wnet/supr + Sy ag: .l E-Mail this Page Glossary MAJORITY RULES Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) THE ISSUE In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court was charged with assessing both the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment with respect to the relative powers of federal and state governments. Hammer v. Dagenhart put this question before the Court: Does the authority vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the states allow it to enact legislation targeting manufacturing practices? THE OPINION? Below are two opinions. Click on the answer you think represents the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Hammer v. Dagenhart. YES, the authority vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the states does allow it to enact legislation targeting manufacturing practices. "The Act does not meddle with anything belonging to the States. They may regulate their internal affairs and their domestic commerce as they like. But when they seek to send their products across the State line they are no longer within their rights. If there were no Constitution and no Congress their power to cross the line would depend upon their neighbors. Under the Constitution such commerce belongs not to the States but to Congress to regulate. It may carry out its views of public policy whatever indirect effect they may have upon the activities of the States. Instead of being encountered by a prohibitive tariff at her boundaries the State encounters the public policy of the United States which it is for Congress to express.' Oliver Wendell Holmes YES NO, the authority vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the states does not allow it to enact legislation targeting manufacturing practices. \"In our view the necessary effect of this act is, by means of a prohibition against the movement in interstate commerce of ordinary commercial commodities to regulate the hours of labor of children in factories and mines within the states, a purely state authority. Thus the act in a two-fold sense is repugnant to the Constitution. It not only transcends the authority delegated to Congress over commerce but also exerts a power as to a purely local matter to which the federal authority does not extend... For these reasons we hold that this law exceeds the constitutional authority of Congress.\" - William Day 8:51 96 thirteen.org/wnet/supr + :D . . . THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS Intro | Court History | Majority Rules | Biographies of the Robes | Landmark Cases | Primary Sources Majority Rules