III.C Commerce Power.txt

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): author and vote

Fuller, 8-1 (Harlan dissent)

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): facts

American Sugar acquires four Pennsylvania refineries, 98% of U.S. refining • government sues under the Sherman Act • first antitrust case

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): constitutional question

Can Congress suppress a manufacturing monopoly under the commerce power?

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): holding

No. Decree affirmed.

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): reasoning

Police power over monopoly "originally and always belonging to the States" • "Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it" • effect on commerce only "incidental and indirect" • intent to export doesn't make goods commerce • if national power reached all production "comparatively little of business operations… would be left for state control" • "acknowledged evils… had better be borne" than risk the dual system

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): dissent

Harlan: citizens are entitled to buy goods free of illegal combinations • a state couldn't burden interstate purchases, so why may a private trust "do, with impunity, what no State can do" • only the national government can deal with it

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): interpretive tools [inferred]

Formal categories (manufacture vs. commerce; direct vs. indirect) • Structural / dual federalism (preserve the "dual system"; what would be "left for state control") • Consequentialist

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895): significance / exam connection

Manufacture/commerce and direct/indirect distinctions rule until 1937 • nearly kills the Sherman Act • Harlan's view wins later (Wickard). DUAL FEDERALISM: production is local. Contrast Champion (interstate traffic = national) and Gibbons ("complete in itself")

Which case? "Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it"

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895), Fuller

Which case? "acknowledged evils… had better be borne" than risk the dual system

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895), Fuller

Which case? Sugar refining monopoly, 98% of U.S. refining, first Sherman Act case

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895)

Champion v. Ames (1903) (Lottery Case): author and vote

Harlan, 5-4 (Fuller dissent with Brewer, Shiras, Peckham)

Champion v. Ames (1903): facts

1895 federal law bans lottery tickets from interstate commerce and the mail • Champion ships Paraguayan tickets Texas to California via Wells Fargo • arrested

Champion v. Ames (1903): the two questions

1. Are lottery tickets commerce? 2. Can Congress prohibit, not just regulate?

Champion v. Ames (1903): holding

Yes / Yes. Affirmed.

Champion v. Ames (1903): reasoning

Tickets have money value, "subjects of traffic and therefore are subjects of commerce" • Gibbons: power "complete in itself" • Congress has "a large discretion" over means • the act doesn't touch intrastate lotteries • as a state may ban lotteries for morals, Congress may guard "the people of the United States against the 'widespread pestilence of lotteries'" • decides "nothing more" than this case

Champion v. Ames (1903): dissent

Fuller: the purpose is suppressing lotteries, a police matter • "To hold that Congress has general police power would be… to defeat the operation of the Tenth Amendment"

Champion v. Ames (1903): interpretive tools [inferred]

Precedent (Gibbons's "complete in itself") • Analogy to state police power • Moral/pragmatic ("widespread pestilence") • Minimalism (decides "nothing more")

Champion v. Ames (1903): significance / exam connection

Federal police power via commerce (Mann Act, Pure Food Act) • tension with E.C. Knight • Hammer tries to draw the line. NATIONALIST: interstate traffic can be prohibited. Exam contrast: Knight = manufacturing/local/dual federalism; Champion = interstate traffic/nationalist commerce power

Which case? "widespread pestilence of lotteries"

Champion v. Ames (1903), Harlan

Which case? "To hold that Congress has general police power would be… to defeat the operation of the Tenth Amendment"

Fuller dissenting in Champion v. Ames (1903)

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): author and vote

Day, 5-4 (Holmes dissent with Brandeis, Clarke, McKenna)

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): facts

Federal Child Labor Act bars interstate shipment of goods made by children under 14 or by 14–16-year-olds working over 8 hours • test case by Southern cotton manufacturers • Dagenhart sues to keep his sons working at a N.C. mill

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): constitutional question

Can Congress bar child-made goods from interstate commerce?

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): holding

No. Affirmed (injunction against the act).

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): reasoning

The commerce clause "was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize" state conditions • Champion/Hoke involved harmful goods; these are "ordinary commercial commodities" • the act really regulates hours of labor in manufacturing, "a purely state authority" • 10th Amendment reserves local matters • if allowed, "our system of government be practically destroyed"

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): dissent

Holmes: states may regulate at home "but when they seek to send their products across the state line they are no longer within their rights" • Congress "may carry out its views of public policy whatever indirect effect they may have upon the activities of the states"

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): interpretive tools [inferred]

Original purpose ("not intended") • Formal distinction (harmful goods vs. ordinary commodities) • Structural / dual federalism (10th Amendment as a reservation of local matters)

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): significance / exam connection

Production/commerce line from E.C. Knight • 10th Amendment as a brake • overruled by Darby (1941), which adopts Holmes. DUAL FEDERALISM. Contrast Champion: prohibition of harmful goods OK, harmless goods not

Which case? "ordinary commercial commodities"; act "was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize"

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), Day

Which case? Holmes: "when they seek to send their products across the state line they are no longer within their rights"

Holmes dissenting in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): author and vote

Sutherland, 5-4 on the labor provisions (Cardozo dissent with Brandeis, Stone; Hughes separate)

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): facts

Bituminous Coal Conservation Act (1935): code commission on prices, wages, hours, bargaining • 15% tax with a 90% rebate for joining • shareholder Carter sues his own company to stop it joining

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): constitutional question

Can Congress regulate wages, hours, and labor relations in coal mining under the commerce clause?

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): holding

No. Reversed.

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): reasoning

Commerce = "intercourse for the purposes of trade" • "Mining is not interstate commerce, but, like manufacturing, is a local business" • "Production is not commerce; but a step in preparation for commerce" • labor relations are "intercourse for the purposes of production, not of trade" • direct vs. indirect "turns… entirely upon the manner in which the effect has been brought about," not magnitude • "the effect does not become direct by multiplying the tonnage"

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): concurrence and dissent

Hughes: price provisions valid and severable • Cardozo (with Brandeis, Stone): price provisions valid where interstate commerce is "directly or intimately affected"; "my vote is for affirmance"

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): interpretive tools [inferred]

Formal categories (production vs. commerce; direct vs. indirect judged by manner, not magnitude) • Structural / dual federalism • Precedent (Knight)

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): significance / exam connection

High-water mark of E.C. Knight • last anti–New Deal commerce case • abandoned in Jones & Laughlin (1937), Darby, Wickard • triggers the Court-packing plan • language revived in Lopez. DUAL FEDERALISM's last stand

Which case? "the effect does not become direct by multiplying the tonnage"

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936), Sutherland

Which case? "Production is not commerce; but a step in preparation for commerce"

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936), Sutherland

III.C commerce line 1895–1936: Knight → Champion → Hammer → Carter Coal

Knight (1895): manufacturing is not commerce; direct/indirect. Champion (1903): Congress may prohibit interstate traffic in lottery tickets (federal police power). Hammer (1918): but not ordinary goods made by child labor; 10th Amendment brake. Carter Coal (1936): mining/labor relations are production, effect indirect regardless of magnitude. Dual federalism wins the pre-1937 line except Champion

III.C: the Knight/Champion contrast in one line

E.C. Knight = manufacturing / local / dual federalism (Fuller). Champion v. Ames = interstate traffic / nationalist commerce power (Harlan). Hammer tries to reconcile them: harmful goods may be barred, harmless goods may not

III.C: which dissents in this line later become law?

Harlan in Knight (national government alone can reach the trust) → Wickard. Holmes in Hammer (Congress may act whatever the indirect effect on states) → Darby (1941). Cardozo in Carter Coal (direct or intimate effect) → Jones & Laughlin (1937)