Hammer Vs Dagenhart Case Study

501 Words3 Pages
Hammer v. Dagenhart and US v. Darby The 10th Amendment helped to further explain the balance of power concerning the federal government and the states. The amendment states that the federal government has only the power explicitly established by the Constitution and this became the central agreement in the cases of Hammer vs. Dagenhart and US vs. Darby. In 1918 The Supreme Court heard the case of Hammer vs. Dagenhart, it was brought about by Roland Dagenhart after it was ruled by the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 that companies that employed child laborers below the age of fourteen were unable to sell their manufactured goods in other states that had laws prohibiting child labor. Mr. Dagenhart argued that the law was unconstitutional; stating…show more content…
Darby Lumber Co. a case similar to Hammer vs. Dagenhart, was brought before the Supreme Court. The suit was against Fred Darby the owner of a successful lumber company who had been charged with violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been over turned in a lower court. This new law created the minimum wage, time and a-half over time pay, set child labor laws that we still benefit from today. One issue was whether Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in creating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Darby argued that it was not for Congress to ban transportation in interstate commerce as well as violate the 5th Amendment protecting citizens from self-implication by recording of the times and ages of their laborers. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed to reverse the previous court’s decision of not guilty citing that it is within the constitutional authority of Congress to standardize interstate commerce. The Court believed that the goal of the Act was to prohibit states from using substandard labor systems to their own monetary benefit by interstate commerce. The Court also established that the clause for keeping records of labor was fitting to allow for the enforcement of the Act. It was also decided that an employer could be held accountable to the law if they failed to follow it. In conclusion the Supreme Courts helped interpret that these new laws did not violate the ideals of the Federalist ideals of the Constitution

More about Hammer Vs Dagenhart Case Study

Open Document