Case Name: Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.
Citation: 270 U.S. 402 (1926)
Issue: Whether a Pennsylvania act which prohibited the use of “shoddy” in comfortables violated the due process clause.
Facts: Palmer Bros manufactures about 3 million “comfortables” or bedcovers a year. About 750,000 of these bedcovers are filled with “shoddy.” Shoddy consists of leftover clippings obtained from cutting tables and secondhand shoddy consists of secondhand garments and rags. The bedcovers filled with secondhand shoddy were sold at a lower price. The Pennsylvania act in question prescribes sterilization of materials if they are secondhand and prohibits the use of new or old shoddy, even when sterilized. The act was purported as a measure to protect health.
Holding: The act was ruled unconstitutional.
Reasoning: There was no evidence that even in the absence of disinfection or sterilization that shoddy was still harmful. The fact that both parties agree that shoddy may be rendered harmless by disinfection or sterilization shows that the act is unreasonable and arbitrary.
Holmes’ Dissent: If the Penn. Legislature “regarded the danger as very great and inspection and tagging as inadequate remedies” they should be able to constitutionally forbid the use of shoddy in order to prevent the spread of disease.