Connection lost
Server error
Hammer v. Dagenhart Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down a federal law prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods made with child labor. The Court held that Congress’s Commerce Clause power does not extend to regulating local manufacturing conditions, which are reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
Legal Significance: This case represents the high-water mark of “dual federalism,” narrowly construing the Commerce Clause to exclude the regulation of production. It established a firm distinction between manufacturing (local) and commerce (interstate), limiting federal power and protecting state police powers under the Tenth Amendment.
Hammer v. Dagenhart Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Congress enacted the Federal Child Labor Act of 1916, which prohibited the transportation in interstate commerce of goods produced by any mine or factory that employed children under specified ages or for more than a set number of hours. Roland Dagenhart, on behalf of himself and his two minor sons who worked in a North Carolina cotton mill, sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Act. Dagenhart argued that the law was unconstitutional because it was not a regulation of interstate commerce but rather an attempt to regulate local labor conditions, a power reserved to the states. The federal government, represented by U.S. Attorney William C. Hammer, defended the Act as a valid exercise of Congress’s plenary power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the channels of interstate trade. The government cited precedents where the Court had upheld prohibitions on lottery tickets, impure foods, and the transportation of women for immoral purposes. The District Court sided with Dagenhart, declaring the Act unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Congress have the authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of ordinary goods that were produced in a facility employing child labor?
No. The Court held that the Federal Child Labor Act was an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Congress have the authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of ordinary goods that were produced in a facility employing child labor?
Conclusion
This decision established a significant limitation on federal authority under the Commerce Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
The authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause does not extend to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Day articulated a narrow view of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qui
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.