| Hammer v. Dagenhart | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 15–16, 1918 Decided June 3, 1918 | |
| Full case name | Hammer, United States Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina v. Dagenhart, et al. |
| Citations | 247 U.S. 251 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Appeal from the District of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Holding | |
| Congress has no power under the Commerce Clause to regulate labor conditions. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Day, joined by White, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds |
| Dissent | Holmes, joined by McKenna, Brandeis, Clarke |
| Laws applied | |
| Keating-Owen Act of 1916; Commerce Clause of the U.S. Const. | |
Overruled by | |
| United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941) | |
| Youth rights |
|---|
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a federal law regulating child labor. The decision was overruled by United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941).
During the Progressive Era, public sentiment in the United States turned against what was perceived as increasingly intolerable child labor conditions. In response, Congress passed the Keating–Owen Act, prohibiting the sale in interstate commerce of any merchandise that had been made either by children under the age of fourteen, or by children under sixteen who worked more than sixty hours per week. In his majority opinion, Justice William R. Day struck down the Keating–Owen Act, holding that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to regulate working conditions. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that goods manufactured in one state and sold in other states were by definition interstate commerce, and thus Congress should have power to regulate the manufacturing of those goods.