Lecture 26 The Commerce Power Part 3: Industrial Revolution Cases II

This lecture We will cover the second half of the section on the Industrial Revolution Cases Pages 431-439

Regulating Commerce as a Federal Police Power The general authority of a government to regulate for the health, safety, morals and general welfare of its citizens This was held by states prior to the Constitution being adopted States retain this power as well as long as it does not conflict with constitutional limits It is not a specific delegated federal power- it has to find a specific grant of authority Hoke v. United States (1913) The Mann Act made it a federal crime to transport someone across state lines for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purposes Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, but it could under the commerce clause Because it dealt with interstate travel

Champion v. Ames (1903) Champion v. Ames (1903) Background Question Congress passes a law prohibiting importing, transporting lottery tickets across state lines or through the mail Champion was arrested for arranging lottery tickets from Paraguay to be sent to Texas and then transported to California by Wells Fargo He says the law is unconstitutional Question Did the transport of the tickets by an independent carrier constitute commerce, which Congress could then regulate?

Champion v. Ames- II Arguments For Champion (strike down the law) The power over regulation of lotter tickets is a police power exclusively reserved to states It violates the 10th Amendment It is not the regulation of commerce, but of an alleged evil It has no relationship to commerce, thus not necessary and proper for carrying out the power to regulate commerce among the states For Ames (uphold the law) Lottery tickets are articles of commerce- they are things people buy and sell The real question is whether the articles have been subjects of purchase and sale The power to prohibit is absolute and the Congress is the final judge of that exercise

Champion v. Ames- III Justice Harlan writes for a 5-4 Court Notice his full name is John Marshall Harlan Commerce is not defined by the Constitution- he notices this several times He says the leading case is Gibbons v. Ogden Lottery tickets are subjects of traffic and therefore the subjects of commerce The commerce power "is plenary, is complete in itself, and is subject to no limitations except such as may be found in the Constitution.“ Congress only prohibited interstate transport, not intrastate Congress is assisting the states in rooting out an alleged evil This case stands for the proposition that Congress may use the commerce clause in the same way states use their police powers

Champion v. Ames- IV Chief Justice Fuller dissents Joined by Brewer, Peckham and Shiras The police power has always belonged to the states This is a reserved power to them Granting Congress the general police power would defeat the purposes of the 10th Amendment Hopolite Egg Company v. United States (1911) The Court upholds the Food and Drug Act as a valid exercise of the commerce power After Hoke, they made other federal crimes for activities that cross state lines

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Background Child labor had become a big issue Companies had no problem hiring young children, often for very dangerous jobs Businesses gained from these practices and made a lot of money- particularly textiles The Progressive Movement wished to stop these practices After a lot of debate, Congress finally passed the Keating-Own Child Labor Act of 1916 It prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce that came from a factory when those producing the good were below the age of 14, had those between 14-16 work more than eight hours a day Textile companies led the fight against it

Hammer v. Dagenhart- II More background The textile owners needed a plaintiff- the found one Dagenhart’s children were employed at a cotton mill in North Carolina North Carolina law allowed them to work up to 11 hours a day With the new law, one child could not work at all and the other limited to eight hours The Executive Committee worked with the Dagenharts and the company They said they effected employees would be unable to continue to work They file for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement They win at the district court level Attorney General John W. Davis said states had not been doing enough on child labor

Hammer v. Dagenhart- III Question: Did this law violate the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment? There was also a question of Due Process as well (not decided) So will the Court follow the approach in E.C. Knight or the Shreveport Doctrine? Arguments For Hammer (uphold the law) This only applies to transporting the products out of state- not within states Transportation of goods is clearly within the meaning of commerce Unfair competition- this has to be done at a national level States rights are irrelevant- this is a power under the commerce clause

Hammer v. Dagenhart- IV Arguments For Dagenhart (strike down the law) The commerce clause was not a positive grant of power to the federal government The purpose of the legislation was to prevent child labor Not to regulate commerce Congress is trying to regulate production of goods, not their transportation This goes beyond the scope of the commerce clause The consequences of child labor are local- so they can only be regulated by states The right to exercise police power over intrastate matters is reserved to the states

Hammer v. Dagenhart- V Justice Day writes for a 5-4 Court There is no power vested in Congress to require the states to exercise their police power so as to prevent possible unfair competition The Commerce Clause does not give the Congress the power to equalize conditions Congress has not tried to deny transportation to other areas like hours and women labor The country is a nation made up of states- power not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved to them This is purely an issue of state authority It exceeds the commerce power Exerts power over a purely local matter The effect of this opinion, along with E.C. Knight was that Congress was not going to be able to regulate manufacturing or production of goods through the Commerce Clause

Hammer v. Dagenhart- VI Justice Holmes, dissenting Joined by Brandeis, Clarke and McKenna) Note the new justices on the Court since Champion He takes the across state lines approach This is not seeking to regulate anything within the state The power to regulate commerce belongs to Congress, not states Congress should choose public policy here even if it has an indirect effect on states Congress should shape policy for the nation as a whole “self-seeking state”

Next lecture We move into the New Deal cases We will first do the cases going against FDR Plus a discussion of the Court packing plan Pages 439-452