Darby Lumber (D) was producing and shipping products in interstate commerce while employing labor in violation of FLSA.
D argued that the FLSA was an unconstitutional use of Congress's Commerce Clause power.
Procedural History:
Lower court held FLSA unconstitutional.
SCOTUS reversed, FLSA constitutional.
Issues:
Does Congress have the power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the shipment of goods in interstate commerce which were produced in violation to federal statute?
Does Congress have the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment of workers?
Holding/Rule:
Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the shipment of goods in interstate commerce which were produced in violation to federal statute.
Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment of workers.
Reasoning:
While manufacture is no of itself interstate commerce, the shipment of manufactured goods interstate is commerce and the prohibition of such shipments by Congress is regulation of commerce.
Such regulation is not a forbidden invasion of state power merely because either its motive or its consequence is to restrict the use of articles of commerce within the states of destination and is not prohibited unless by other Constitutional provisions.
Hammer v. Dagenhart should be overruled since its distinction between dangerous and benign articles for interstate commerce purposes is not Constitutional and has not been followed.
Congress has adopted the policy of excluding from interstate commerce all goods produced which do not conform to the specified labor standards; it may choose the means reasonably adapted to the attainment of the permitted end, even though they involve control of intrastate activities.
This conclusion is unaffected by the 10th Amendment.
10th Amendment was nothing but a truism, a declaratory statement. No extra powers were given to the state through it.
