This is apparent as child labor refers to both the production and manufacture of goods. In the early twentieth century it was not uncommon for children of a young age to be working in factories, mills, and other industrial environments for long hours with very little pay. The father of two children, one age fourteen and the other under age sixteen, sought an injunction against the enforcement of the Act on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. A law is not beyond the regulative power of Congress merely because it prohibits certain transportation out and out (Holmes 1918). U.S. Supreme Court Cases: Study Guide & Review, Debs v. United States (1919): Summary & Impact, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, Hammer v. Dagenhart: Historical Background, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that although some non-traditional goods and activities such as prostitution, lottery tickets and impure food, which normally are regulated under the police powers of the states, were able to be regulated under the Commerce Clause, child labor was not as long as it wasn't transported from state to state. Manufacturing is a local matter that should be left to the states to decide how to regulate. There were no Concurring opinions in this case. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. The Fair Labor Standards Act established many of the workplace rules we are familiar with today, such as the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, and overtime pay. Congress claimed constitutional authority for this law because Article I, Section 8 gives it the power to regulate interstate commerce. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions. In Hammer v Dagenhart, Congress sought to uphold the Keating-Owen Act of 1916, but the majority opinion held that Congress did not hold the power to regulate the circumstances under which a specific product was developed if the product was never going to enter interstate commerce. Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. But the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's intrusion of these activities because the spread of these ills was being perpetuated by interstate commerce. The Court recognized that disparate labor regulations placed the various states on unequal ground in terms of economic competitiveness, but it specifically stated that Congress could not address such inequality, as it was within the right of states to enact differing laws within the scope of their police powers: It is further contended that the authority of Congress may be exerted to control interstate commerce in the shipment of childmade goods because of the effect of the circulation of such goods in other states where the evil of this class of labor has been recognized by local legislation, and the right to thus employ child labor has been more rigorously restrained than in the state of production. The making of goods and the mining of coal are not commerce, nor does the fact that these things are to be afterwards shipped or used in interstate commerce make their production a part thereof (Day 1918). Original applications of the act had to do with regulations around the conduct of trade in commodities and durable goods across state lines, generally avoiding regulating issues considered to have a great impact on public health, wellbeing, and morals. They also worried about the physical risks: children in factories had high accident rates.