Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Citation: 247 U.S. 251 (1918)
Issue: Does Congress have the authority to regulate child labor by prohibiting the interstate transportation of products that were manufactured by children?
Facts: A father filed the initial action because Congress had passed an act which prohibited the interstate trade of goods that were manufactured by children.
Procedural History: A North Carolina Court ruled it was unconstitutional and the US Attorney General (Hammer) appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding: Production is over once the products are offered for shipment which would put them into interstate commerce. Further, the fact that the products were “intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power.”
Additional Contention and Answer: It was further contended that the allowance of child labor in one state was unfair because it put other states that did not allow child labor at a disadvantage. “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 was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize such conditions.”
Holding: Congress does not have the authority to regulate child labor in North Carolina.
Dissent (Holmes): The statute confines itself to prohibiting the shipment of goods in interstate and foreign commerce that were created by children. This is interstate commerce and Congress is given the power to regulate such commerce.