Today in Supreme Court History: June 3, 1918

6/3/1918: Hammer v. Dagenhart decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (decided June 3, 1918): Interstate Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to forbid child labor (specifically, to forbid interstate sale of goods produced by child labor) (overruled by United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 1941)

Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (decided June 3, 1946): (argued by Thurgood Marshall) struck down on Equal Protection grounds Virginia law enforcing segregation on interstate buses; decision was routinely ignored for years

Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. — (decided June 3, 2021): policeman who used his patrol car computer to find license plate information for outside income did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which applies to computer-accessed information “that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain” (and as a police officer he was entitled to obtain that information) (the whole case depended on that word “so”, which to me argues against this result)

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (decided June, 3, 2013): no warrant needed for minimally invasive DNA test (swab inside mouth) during booking for serious crime (rape)

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (decided June 3, 1957): conviction of labor union president for lying about Communist Party membership vacated because government would not submit reports made by government informants to in camera inspection

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (decided June 3, 1968): jurors can be excluded if they say they would never vote for execution but not if they merely express scruples about the death penalty

Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. 483 (decided June 3, 2013): widow of second marriage not entitled to life insurance proceeds because husband never changed the name of the beneficiary; this is irrelevant under state statute but preempted by federal law on life insurance policies given to federal employees

Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U.S. — (decided June 3, 2019): Title VII requirement to file information with EEOC prior to filing suit is not “jurisdictional” (i.e., suit can go forward if defendant doesn’t timely object) (sexual harassment suit; employer didn’t bring up filing deficiency until years into litigation)

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (decided June 3, 1996): Burford abstention (as to challenges to state administrative agency orders) not applicable where suit is for damages and not equitable or discretionary relief (here, a breach of contract suit against Allstate brought by state insurance commissioner as trustee of bankrupt insurer)

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (decided June 3, 1991): extended the Batson principle (jurors can’t be excluded based on race) to civil suits

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why select Hammer v. Dagenhart as the outstanding decision from that list?

I doubt one could find five law professors in 100 -- especially at strong schools -- who would choose that one.

[Frank Drackman]

How many College Football Coaches would, “Coach”??

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many College Football Coaches would

Why do so many Volokh Conspiracy fans engage in random capitalization?

Is it an on-the-spectrum issue?

A consequence of inadequate education?

Does it constitute lack-of-virtue signaling to other clingers?

Is it related to the disaffectedness?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Arthur,

When Josh cites something the Supreme Court actually did — he usually doesn’t — it’s entitled to some deference. Hammer, though later overruled, is notable as an example of the Lochner era.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did he and Barnett mention that the decision has been overruled this time?

I predict not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t know. I don’t click on the link any more.

[John F. Carr]

If I had a Hammer I'd labor in the morning, I'd labor in the evening, all over this land.

[Purple Martin]

…especially at 10 years old!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (decided June 3, 1946): (argued by Thurgood Marshall) struck down on Equal Protection grounds Virginia law enforcing segregation on interstate buses; decision was routinely ignored for years"

I that was a Commerce Clause case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re right! Thanks. Will correct it for next time and for my book.

[Dilan Esper]

Hammer is as bad as SCOTUS gets. Not only striking down a necessary law, but also in endorsing one of the dumbest legal tests in SCOTUS history- the notion that manufacturing something, even by a conglomerate that employs thousands of people and which will sell it all over the world, is not commerce. Just brain dead-- a court that refused to accept that as we started buying things that crossed state lines, Congress would have more power.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, today's standard where everything under the sun -- up to and including private conduct in one's own back yard -- is interstate commerce is much more intellectually honest!

[David Nieporent]

No. Manufacturing something is manufacturing something, not engaging in commerce. What happens with the thing after it's manufactured doesn't retroactively transmute the manufacturing into commerce.

The problem with Hammer is that it doesn't work on a formalist level or a functional level. The law at issue in Hammer did not regulate manufacturing; the Court just pretended otherwise because it didn't like the law. Like the law at issue in National Pork Producers, it regulated only what could be done with the goods after they were manufactured.

[Dilan Esper]

Manufacturing is the headwaters of the stream of commerce.

Alternatively, no man but a blockhead ever manufactured, except for money.

[Gandydancer]

Irrelevant. Characterizing something as “the headwaters of the stream of commerce” doesn’t transform it into what the Commerce Clause properly allwos the federal government to regulate.

The source of commerced goods is neither mentioned nor implied: Congress shall have power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

And the law was absolutely NOT "necessary". States are perfectly competent to regulate child labor.

[Dilan Esper]

Good luck with a position on child labor that 1% of America shares.