POLI 230 Quiz 2

Hammer v. Dagenhart, Muller v. Oregon, Adkins v. Children's Hospital, United States v. Butler, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, United States v. Darby, Wickard v. Fillburn

Hammer v. Dagenhart

1.Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-Congress through it had the right to act as lots of goods were traveling state lines and wanted to regulate commerce crossing state lines

-Congress passed Child Labor Act of 1916 which prohibited goods produced by children to be passed through state lines to promote business to stop using child labor by making it hard to run a business through that method

-Ronald Dagenhart brought this law to court due to family needs for child labor

Hammer v. Dagenhart

2.What are the constitutional issues in this case

 

-Does this law violate the Commerce Clause

Hammer v. Dagenhart

3. How does the majority resolve the issue?

 

-Majority says yes it violates Commerce Clause

Hammer v. Dagenhart

4.Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-Majority refers back to 4 precedents (Champion v. Ames, Hippolite Egg v. US, Hoke v. US, Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland  Railway Co) where police powers were upheld, referring that these goods were harmful.

-Textualism: The majority interpreted the Constitution strictly, arguing that the Commerce Clause does not explicitly grant Congress the power to regulate manufacturing.

-Originalism: The Court relied on the original understanding of the Tenth Amendment, asserting that states retain control over local matters like labor laws.

-Structuralism: The decision reinforced the balance of power between federal and state governments, emphasizing that Congress should not interfere with state sovereignty.

Hammer v Dagenhart

How does the Court distinguish this case from previous cases upholding interstate transportation bans on other kinds of products?

-Products created from child labor are not inherently harmful while other precedent cases and the products they regulated were

Hammer v Dagenhart

Why does Justice Holme's invoke Chief Justice Marshall's understanding of congressional power over commerce in his dissenting opinion?

-Refers back Gibbons v Ogden to regulate interstate commercial commerce for any reason

Commerce Clause

-Is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

-It grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Necessary and Proper Clause

-Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution.

-It grants Congress the authority to use all means necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers.

-The clause allows Congress to create laws that are not expressly given in the Constitution but are essential to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.

-It encompasses implied and incidental powers conducive to the beneficial exercise of an enumerated power.

Champion v Ames

>Congress banned the interstate transportation of lottery tickets

-Conservative Christian push to eliminate gambling

-Upheld by the Supreme Court, even though gambling is a question of morality

>Hold out states

-New York was the only state that allowed lottery tickets

-But people across the country could send money through the mail and get lottery tickets back

Hippolite Egg Co v. United States

>Upheld the Pure Food and Drug Act

-Signature accomplishment of Teddy Roosevelt

-Prohibited the interstate transport of unlawful food and drugs

-Required product labeling

-Prohibited adding ingredients that would conceal damage, pose a health hazard, etc.

-Created what eventually became the FDA

>Hold out States

-Railways mean more goods can be shipped cross country

Hoke v United States

>Upheld the Mann Act aka 'White Slave Traffic Act'

>Prohibited the interstate transportation of sex workers

>Hold out States

-States can ban prostitution but cannot prevent its citizens from traveling across state lines to seek it out

Clark Distilling Co v Western Maryland Railway Co

>Upheld a federal ban on the interstate transportation of alcohol

>Hole out States

-States can ban sale of booze from in-state and out-of-state sources, but it's hard to be effective if out of state booze sneaks in

Jacobson v Massachusetts

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-MA passes a law that allows local health departments to require vaccination during emergencies and fines those who refused to vaccinate

-Jacobson refused to get vaccinated due to prior bad experiences with vaccination and was penalized with fine for not getting vaccinated

Jacobson v Massachusetts

What is the constitutional issue in this case?

-Whether the vaccination law violate Jacobson's right to liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

-Not a liberty of contract issue as it does not relate to business

Jacobson v Massachusetts

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-Held (7-2 Harland writing) that the law was a legitimate police power regulation of public health

Jacobson v Massachusetts

Why does the majority reach its conclusion on the issue? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-Compares forced recruitment in army in peaceful v. war time to forcing vaccination during peaceful times and outbreaks (distinguishes reasonable actions

that were appropriate for the environment at that time)

-Argues law was a reasonable action

-Also uses sociological jurisprudence regarding need of vaccination protects public health

-It's cruel to force vaccination onto vulnerable people , but in this case it does not

Jacobson v Massachusetts

According to the Court, why does the scope of 'reasonable' regulations change in different contexts

-Depends on what kind of problem, certain problems arise in certain times

Jacobson v Massachusetts

Does the fact that the law only specifies a (relatively minor) fine, as opposed to forced vaccination matter to the court?

-I believe this piece of information was crucial to the court's decision. Forced vaccination would be a direct violation of one's liberty as their decision is no longer voluntary while fine gives one option to decide with they want to get vaccinated or just pay a fine.

Historical Eras

-Marshal Court : 1801-1835

-Lochner Era: 1897-1937

-New Deal Era: 1937-1995

-Modern Era: 1995-2024f

Substantive Due Process

-Even if given notice and an ability to respond, the deprivation of life, liberty, or property might still be unconstitutional

>Implies a broader duty for government to conduct itself appropriately even if its procedures are followed

-The substance of a law is unconstitutional if it violates an individual right

Liberty of Contract

>Presumes adults are capable of making their own business arrangements without arbitrary government interference

-Government intervention means playing favorites in a dispute instead of staying neutral

Muller v Oregon

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-Muller ran a laundry company, hired Emma Gotcher, exceeded the laws working hours, fined for breaking the law, disputed it in court

Muller v Oregon

What are the constitutional issues in this case?

-Whether a state law regulating work hours for women infringe on the liberty of contract in violation of the Due Process Clause

Muller v Oregon

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-9-0 (Brewer writing) No, physical gender differences justify 'protective legislation' regarding work hours

Muller v Oregon

Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-States Liberty of contract is not absolute and guaranteed

-Uses sociological jurisprudence to argue that women are frail and social norms at that time to state women need to be healthy to keep the house orderly

>Legal Rulings

-Police Powers of the State: The Court held that the state had the authority to regulate working conditions to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Limiting women's working hours fell within this scope

-Fourteenth Amendment: While the Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty to contract, the Court ruled that this liberty is not absolute and can be restricted for valid state interests, such as protecting women's health

Muller v Oregon

Contrast how the Court views women in Muller and Adkins against the (male) bakers in Lochner

-Upheld laws, justifying laws as protection for females due to physical differences

Muller v Oregon

Why did the Brandeis brief succeed in Muller

-Introduced a novel approach to legal arguments by incorporating extensive sociological and medical data to support the case. Louis D. Brandeis, representing the state of Oregon, compiled a brief that included over 100 pages of data and expert opinions demonstrating the negative effects of long working hours on women's health and well-being. This approach was groundbreaking because it relied on empirical evidence rather than purely legal arguments.

Brandeis Brief

-By Louis Brandeis

-Legal brief compiled a number of statistics from medical and sociological journals and listed citations to the articles about women’s health and safety, factory inspectors, doctors, laws protecting women in the workplace, etc.

-2 pages of legal argument

-98 pages of social science

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-Congress based minimum wage law for women in DC, Chren's Hospital and female employee contested law by suing Jesse Adkins

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

What are the constitutional issues in this case?

-Whether a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia violates the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-Held 5-3 (Sutherland writing) that gender differences do not justify 'protective legislation' regarding wages

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-Relied on social changes and treatment of women where they are treated as more equal and distinguishes physical differences may justify labor regulations but not against economic protections and freedom of contract,.

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

Why does the Court in Adkins think wages are different from hours

-Argued that while maximum-hour laws regulate the number of hours an employee can work, they still allow employers and employees to negotiate wages freely. However, minimum wage laws directly interfere with the employer's ability to negotiate wages, which the Court saw as an unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

Sutherland Arguments

>Protective legislation justified if a group needs protection

>Women used to be treated as the equivalent of children - too immature to have the right to vote (but not anymore)

>Only physical differences may justify protection (for labor law justification)

>This law is forced charity and undermines women’s rights

Adkins v Children’s Hospital

Holmes' Arguments

>Payments = Hourly wage * hours worked (balances bargaining power rather tahn setting a set yearly wage rate)

>Equality? (there are differences between man and women)

>This isn’t charity (doesn’t cost, sets minimum to live)

United State v Butler

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-The case of United States v. Butler (1936) arose from the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which imposed a tax on agricultural processors.

-The funds collected were redistributed to farmers who agreed to reduce their crop production, aiming to stabilize agricultural prices during the Great Depression.

-Was trying to solve the problem over cropping and over producing goods that will make price of goods drop.

-Hossac Cotton Mills, middle man who turned crops into food challenged due to being taxed

United State v Butler

What are the constitutional issues in this case?

-Whether a federal law that  offers payment on conditions of changing behavior violates the Taxing and Spending Clause?

United State v Butler

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-Held 6-3 (Roberts writing) - Yes, Offering payments can be just as coercive as threatening someone with jail time

-Law was struck down

United State v Butler

Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

 -Review internal (clause itself) and external limits (other parts of the constitution). Roberts believe 10th amendment limits what Congress can do

-Believed the AAA violates the 10th amendment

>Legal Rules:

-Taxing and Spending Power (Article I, Section 8): While Congress has broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare," the Court held that this power has limits. It cannot be used as a pretext to regulate matters reserved to the states.

-Tenth Amendment: The Court emphasized the principle of federalism, which reserves certain powers, like the regulation of agriculture, to the states.

>Theories of Interpretation:

-Textualism: The Court closely examined the Constitution's text, particularly the enumerated powers in Article I and the Tenth Amendment, to determine the limits of federal authority

-Federalism: The decision reinforced the dual sovereignty of state and federal governments, emphasizing that the federal government cannot encroach on powers reserved to the states

United State v Butler

Describe the Founding era debate over the 'general welfare' as a limit on the taxing and spending clause?

-Madison argued that taxing and spending clause existed merely to fund the other powers given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 (to regulate commerce, to establish a post office, to regulate immigration, to declare war, etc.). "general welfare" clause was not a separate grant of power but rather a limitation on Congress's taxing and spending authority. According to Madison, Congress could only tax and spend to carry out its other enumerated powers, such as regulating commerce or maintaining a military.

-Hamilton says that Taxing and spending might overlap with funding the other powers in Article 1, Section 9, but it does not need to be limited to those other powers. Congress had the authority to tax and spend for any purpose that served the general welfare of the nation, as long as it was not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Hamilton emphasized that the clause granted Congress a distinct power, independent of its other enumerated powers, to address national needs comprehensively.

-Justice Roberts rejects Madison's view and agrees with Hamilton. Stating that Madison's argument means that the clause becomes nothing more than a necessary and proper clause with money involved

United State v Butler

How does the 10th Amendment provide an external limit on the use of the Taxing and Spending Clause, according to Justice Roberts?

-Tenth Amendment acts as a safeguard against federal overreach by reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Amendment ensures that Congress cannot use its taxing and spending powers to regulate areas that are constitutionally reserved for state control, such as agriculture in this case.

-Reinforces the principle of federalism, maintaining the balance between state and federal authority.

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933

-Offers payments to farmers if they agree to not grow crops on some of their land

-Worked out for the farmers because from partial farming + from federal government > $$ from farming all their land

Taxing and Spending Clause

>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debt and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

-Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

United States v Butler

Internal v External Limits

>Internal: By language within the clause itself

-Commerce Clause limited to 'commerce among the states'

-Only internal limit, according to Roberts is whether a tax or payment 'promotes the general welfare'

>External: By language elsewhere in the Constitution

-Roberts thinks the 10th Amendment limits what Congress can do

United States v Butler

Who is Harmed, According to Roberts?

1.State Governments

-Authority taken away by the government

2.Agricultural Processors

-Money taken from them to directly benefit another group

3.Farmers

-Who have no meaningful choice but to accept government payments and stop farming

>Legal coercion (inducing compliance) created by

-Criminalizing, taxing, or offering government money

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-Parrish sued her employer. She claimed that she had been paid less than the minimum wage set by Washington state law,

-Hotel argued that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that it interfered with the freedom of contract between

employer and employee

-Washington Supreme Court reversed this decision, siding with Parrish and upholding the state's minimum wage law

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

What are the constitutional issues in this case?

Whether a minimum wage law for women abridges liberty of contract in violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-Held 5-4, NO (Hughes writing)

-That liberty of contract cannot undermine the reasonable exercise of a state's police powers

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-Argued that the freedom of contract was not absolute and could be subject to reasonable regulation in the interest of public welfare. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting workers, particularly women, from exploitative wages that could harm their health and well-being

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

Describe the difference between absolute and ordered liberty according to Chief Justice Hughes

-This emphasizes the balance between individual liberty and the need for social order.

-The Constitution's Due Process Clause ensures that liberty can't be restricted arbitrarily; legal procedures must be followed to protect individuals.

-However, the Constitution also recognizes that liberty is not absolute—it must operate within the framework of society.

-This means that laws are necessary to address issues like public health and safety, morality, and the general welfare of people.

-In essence, liberty is protected, but it is shaped and limited by the needs of the larger community.

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

Just by reading this case (not future cases), is it clear whether liberty of contract is no longer a substantive due process right, or is this case exceptional because it involves women?

-Court states liberty of contract is not an absolute right, it is a right the ruling doesn't directly reference gender as part of its justification. It does directly references about liberty of contract being easily manipulated during times of crises such as the Great Depression emphasizing that the notion that the liberty of contract is dead is because of economic crisis that is beyond gender.

Government Neutrality

>When two groups are competing, government must stay neutral. Cannot pick one side over the other

New Take on Government Neutrality

-This is NOT about favoring one group (employees) at the expense of another (owners). It's about solving a community problem

-It implies that government staying neutral is actually a form of favoritism because it tolerates one group abusing another

United States v Darby

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-Fred W. Darby, a Georgia lumber manufacturer, was indicted for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. The FLSA set minimum wages and maximum working hours for employees producing goods for interstate commerce. Darby paid his workers below the minimum wage and failed to comply with the Act’s requirements, leading to federal charges.

-Darby challenged the constitutionality of the FLSA, arguing that Congress lacked the authority to regulate wages and hours in local manufacturing because manufacturing itself was not interstate commerce

United States v Darby

What are the constitutional issues in this case?

-Whether Congress has the Commerce Clause authority to regulate the wages and hours of workers engaged in interstate commerce

United States v Darby

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-Held 9-0 (Stone writing) YES Congress' power over interstate commerce may be exercised for any purpose using any strategy, including strategies that impact only intrastate commerce

United States v Darby

Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-Clarifies that commerce clause applies still has even if a little of product is being shipped across state lines, Congress has authority to regulate goods however they want. Regulation includes interstate regulation as long as interstate activities affect intrastate commerce.

-Highlights premise that Congress has the right to act successfully

-Court clarifies whether the 10th amendment creates new power for state governments

United States v Darby

Describe the two strategies Congress employs to regulate wage and hours. Given these strategies, why does Darby Lumber think the real goal of the law is to regulate intrastate commerce?

Congress prohibited goods that were produced in violation of the law's requirements from being transported across state lines (indirect)

-Directly prohibit employment of workers in violation of the law's requirements

-Darby says their goods aren't innately harmful, and controlling and regulating wage and hours don't make our goods more harmful (referencing to past federal bans on harmful goods)

United States v Darby

According to Justice Stone, why does the 10th Amendment not factor into this case?

The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states that are not delegated to the federal government, but Stone clarified that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is explicitly granted by the Constitution.

-Therefore, the 10th Amendment cannot be used to challenge Congress's actions when they are within its commerce power.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

-First minimum wage $.25/hr, rose to $.40/hr ($10.97 in today's money)

-Set work week of 44 hrs

-Establish 1.5x pay for overtime

-Banned most forms of child labor

Indirect and Direct Methods of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

>Applied to (indirect)

-"Employees… engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce"

>Applied by with two means (strategies) (direct)

-By prohibiting goods from being transported across state lines that were produced in violation of the law's requirements (indirect)

-By (directly) prohibiting the employment of workers in violation of the law's requirements

Wickard v Filburn

Who did what to whom to bring about this case?

-Roscoe Filburn, a farmer in Ohio, grew more wheat than allowed under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The Act set quotas on wheat production to stabilize prices, and farmers exceeding their allotment faced penalties.

-Filburn used the extra wheat for personal consumption—feeding his livestock and family—rather than selling it. He argued that since his wheat never entered interstate commerce, Congress had no authority to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. The Secretary of Agriculture, Claude Wickard, enforced the penalty, leading Filburn to challenge the law in court.

Wickard v Filburn

What are the constitutional issues in this case?

-Whether the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate the price of a good by restricting its production

Wickard v Filburn

How does the majority resolve the issue?

-Held 9-0 (Jackson Writing) YES

-Even if an individual's activity has a trivial; activity has a trivial effect on interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it because EVERY individual's combined activity does substantially affect interstate commerce

Wickard v Filburn

Why does the Majority reach this conclusion? What legal rules does the Court rely on? What theory(ies) of interpretation does the opinion embrace?

-Majority refers to a new rule where even if it’s private activity, if it’s under the aggregate principle and it causes a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, Congress has the authority to regulate to achieve the end goal of the regulation.

Wickard v Filburn

Why does the Court not care that amount wheat Roscoe Filburn is very small?

-Did not focus on the small quantity of wheat Filburn grew because the ruling was based on the aggregate effect of similar actions by many farmers. Even though Filburn’s personal wheat production may have seemed insignificant on its own, the Court reasoned that if many farmers grew excess wheat for personal use, it would reduce demand in the national market. This, in turn, would affect interstate commerce, which Congress has the authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

Wickard v Filburn

Given the state of the economy in 1930s-1940s, why was the amount of wheat that was kept on farms to feed livestock such an obstacle to raising wheat prices?

-Reduced Market Demand – Farmers like Roscoe Filburn grew wheat for personal use, feeding livestock instead of selling it. This meant less wheat was purchased in the open market, keeping demand artificially low.

-Oversupply Depressed Prices – The government aimed to limit wheat production to raise prices, but when farmers kept excess wheat, it undermined the effort by maintaining a surplus.

-Economic Recovery Efforts – The government wanted to boost farm incomes by ensuring wheat prices remained stable. If farmers circumvented quotas, it weakened price controls, making recovery harder

Wickard v Filburn

New Rule

>"[E]ven if appellee's [Filburn] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce"

>If private activites has enough economic impact, Congress can regulate