United States v. Darby Flashcards
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Established •First minimum wage $.25/hr, rose to $.40/hr($10.97 in today’s money) •Set work week of 44 hrs •Establish 1.5x pay for overtime •Banned most forms of child labor
how does the law operate → is very important in this case
Who did the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to and how was it applied?
“employees…engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce”
Applied by with two means (strategies)
•By prohibiting goods from being transported across state lines that were produced in violation of the law’s requirements (indirect)
•By (directly) prohibiting the employment of workers in violation of the law’s requirements
Facts
- Darby Lumber Co.
- Located in Statesboro, GA
- Did not pay minimum wage or overtime
- Shipped (some) lumber out of state
Issue
Whether Congress has the Commerce Clause authority to regulate the wages and hours of workers engaged in interstate commerce.
Holding
Held 9-0 (Stone writing) YES Congress’ power over interstate commerce may be exercised for any purpose using any strategy, including strategies that impact only intrastate commerce
Commerce Clause –indirect regulation
Court has upheld federal bans on interstate shipment
•Champion, HippoliteEgg, Hoke, Clark Distilling –> stone = congress has passed all sorts of laws banning the interstate transportation of stuff → lottery tickets, sex workers, etc
Darby Lumber Co. says
•No the FLSA isn’t about the regulating a product, it’s about regulating hours/wages, which should be left to the states –> darby’s lawyer says → these cases = about regulating products/persons involved in services that were considered dangerous –> this is not about regulating products is about regulating wages and hours –> not about the things produced but its about the labor → similar argument in child labor case
Stone responds that Congress’ power is
•“‘is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed by the Constitution.’ Gibbons v. Ogden. That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power.”
- stones response = similar to holmes response in hammer –> - congress’s power under commerce clause → complete, may be exercised to the utmost extent, has very few limitations
- power cannot be enlarged or diminished by exercise or nonexercise of state power
- if something crosses state lines and meets the definition of commerce ⇒ congress can regulate it → in any form that it wants→ if you don’t like it → run to elections and vote in someone else
two forms of punishment if employers don’t comply to the fair standards labor act
- indirect regulation → congress says you must pay workers x number of hours + limit workers work hours x number
- if you don’t comply → congress will refuse to let you ship your goods across state lines → same thing happened with child labor → indirect regulation → after the thing has been made and is ready to be transported that’s when regulation kicks in (occurs at state line)
- directly → cannot employ workers → enforced at job site if you know if part of the goods made their are going to go across state lines
Commerce Clause –indirect regulation(2)
Darby Lumber Co. says
•This isn’t about solving an economic problem, it’s about Congress making police powers judgments
- whole point of federal system → to have some decisions made by one group, others made by another → Darby’s argument
- but only states should be ones to make laws protecting health safety, morality and wellbeing → this is that it seems like congress is doing
- congress when passing this law did it because they think it was protecting the welfare of workers
- not about economics, about the congress making laws that protect the workers → stepping on the states toes, taking their power
Stone responds that Congress’
•“Motive and purpose…are matters for the legislative judgment… over which the courts are given no control….Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause.”
- stone → as long as it does not infringe on conisutional prohibition, and is in line with commerce clause → congress can do it → even if it seems to be within the scope of a state’s police powers
- holmes defence in hammer becomes the majority here
- no dissenting opinion → just Darby’s lawyers → main argument = hammer said this we should accept that
- hammer ends up getting overturned
Commerce Clause –direct regulation
Darby Lumber Co. says
•But surely direct federal regulation of (intrastate) employment conditions isn’t allowed –> Darby arguing that it should be states regulating employment conditions
Stone responds that the Commerce Clause also
•“extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. SeeMcCulloch v. Maryland(1819).”
- Stone → muccloch v. maryland was not just about understanding commerce clause. It was commerce w/ necesary and proper clause attached to it
- in general → state governments = allowed to tax things → but cannot tax federal things
- necesary and proper clause → allows them to shut down this area of a state’s police powers
- of power has the power to act it has the power to do so successfully
If Congress has the power to act…
It has the power to act successfully
Big takeaway of cases like McCulloch and Gibbons
•Congress doesn’t have to wait until things get bad
Maryland’s tax on the Bank of the U.S.
•Wasn’t all that burdensome
•Marshall said that if it were upheld, the next tax could be burdensome
If Congress can ban the interstate transportation of a thing
•It can be the making of the thing BEFORE it gets ready to be transported
Isn’t this overkill? Why does Congress need both the direct and indirect regulatory power?
- innocent explication → easier to enforce the law by sending FBI agents to darby then to patrol the boarder
- Georgia = no state level minium wage → can employ two types of workers → pay the ones that do stuff that goes out of state the money they deserve and underpay the workers who make things that stay instate
- send workers to the factory to ensure that they don’t do anything like this
10th Amendment Arguments
Darby Lumber Co. says
•What about the 10thAmendment?
•This law regulates both interstate commerce (indirect and direct provisions) and intrastate commerce (direct provisions)
Stone responds that the 10th Amendment
•“states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment.”
- direct = makes it more convenient
- but once you allow direct regulation makes it impossible for business to sell things in state was well → violates 10th amendment?
- stone’s response = 10th amendment = truism → offers no consequences
- its declarity of relationship between national and state governments but it is not an affiermated grant of power to states
- it just says that if something does not belong to the federal gov it belongs to the state
- congress identified an interstate problem and has fashioned a solution that is easy to resolve → go straight to the job site and nip it in the but
- congress = -authority to sucessed
- does not affect state governments one way or another
- you just need a valid exercise of congress power → 10th amendment is not implicated at all
- even if .8% is traveling across state lines = congress can act,
The 10th amendment is not intended to….
“depriv[e] the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end….McCulloch v. Maryland(1819)”
The fact that the direct regulations seem to go too far doesn’t matter
- Because banning on site production is a legitimate strategy to prevent the interstate shipment of goods (a legitimate end)
- Remember it’s not just the Commerce Clause, it’s also the Necessary and Proper Clause
- read commerce clause along side necessary and proper clause → Congress can do it even if the spill over effect is that it can regulate the companies on site
- going so far in the other direction → only need a tiny percentage of your business to implicate congress → then you have to comply with it
