Case Citation
Legal Case Name

J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1928Docket #1437114
276 U.S. 394 48 S. Ct. 348 72 L. Ed. 624 1928 U.S. LEXIS 284 Administrative Law Constitutional Law Legislation and Regulation

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

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: An importer challenged a tariff increase enacted by the President. The Supreme Court upheld the law authorizing the action, ruling that Congress can delegate authority to the executive branch so long as it provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive’s discretion.

Legal Significance: This case established the “intelligible principle” doctrine, a foundational concept in administrative and constitutional law that permits Congress to delegate quasi-legislative authority to the executive branch, provided it sets a clear standard to guide the executive’s actions.

J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States 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

J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. imported barium dioxide and was assessed a customs duty of six cents per pound. This rate was two cents higher than the rate specified in the Tariff Act of 1922. The increase was implemented via a proclamation by President Coolidge, acting under the authority of § 315 of the Act, known as the “flexible tariff” provision. This provision authorized the President, after an investigation by the U.S. Tariff Commission, to increase or decrease duties by up to 50%. The stated goal was to “equalize the…differences in costs of production” between goods made in the United States and those from the “principal competing country.” Hampton challenged the increased tariff, arguing that § 315 was unconstitutional on two grounds: first, that it was an impermissible delegation of Congress’s legislative power to tax to the President in violation of the separation of powers; and second, that Congress’s power to levy duties is limited to raising revenue and cannot be used for the protectionist purpose of equalizing competition.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a statute authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates within prescribed limits, in order to effectuate a congressional policy of equalizing production costs, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?

No. The Court held that the authority granted to the President under 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 off

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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 a statute authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates within prescribed limits, in order to effectuate a congressional policy of equalizing production costs, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?

Conclusion

This decision provides the constitutional foundation for the modern administrative state by 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 ex

Legal Rule

If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle 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

Legal Analysis

Chief Justice Taft, writing for a unanimous Court, established the "intelligible principle" 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

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Upheld the “flexible tariff” provision allowing the President to adjust duties
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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+