WI: U.S. Supreme Court loses credibility from pair of child labor decisions in 1918 and 1922?

In 1924, the U.S. House and Senate passed and sent onto the states for possible ratification the *proposed* Child Labor Amendment:

But then things moved at a snail's pace with only two more states until a flurry of activity in 1933. And then by 1937, 28 states had ratified this proposed amendment. Which is credible, which is a majority of the then 48 states. Although short of the needed three fourths.

And with the flurry of activity happening during the Great Depression, maybe there was some political currency to the argument, child labor = unemployment for adults.

Apparently, a number of states first rejected this proposed Child Labor Amendment and later ratified it during the 1930s:

And rejection by 26 states within the first couple of years, yeah, that would be enough to take the steam out of just about anything.

(I can read part of a court decision and get some benefit out of it. Just like I can read part of a New England Journal of Medicine article and get some benefit out of it. And so can you! :) )

If only four more states had ratified it.

If only...
 
People aren't going to overthrow the courts because of Child Labor rulings. People weren't even in favor enough of anti Child Labor laws to get the Child Labor Amendment passed, there's no way they'd get a more sweeping amendment passed.

There really wasn't a lot of need for federal regulation of child labor by the 1930s as it was. By that point the states themselves had outlawed or strictly limited it (such as for family farms and so on) such that the issue was more a matter of symbolism than substance.

To the extent people of the day genuinely cared that much about child labor, they got their state to do the job of stopping it.
 
There really wasn't a lot of need for federal regulation of child labor by the 1930s as it was. By that point the states themselves had outlawed or strictly limited it (such as for family farms and so on) such that the issue was more a matter of symbolism than substance.
(I'm probably wrong about this point) I remember reading, a state law did try to regulate child labor in the 1920s, and the Supreme Court ruled "oh, no, you can't do that. The right of contract."

I will try to research this one.

PS I might be blurring what the Court said in striking down minimum wage, maximum hours, overtime, etc, laws. (think I did)
 
Last edited:
I can only find two (three?) Supreme Court decisions having specifically to do with child labor.

Hammer v. Dagenhart, decided June 3, 1918.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., decided May 15, 1922.

*And there may have been a third case, Atherton v. Johnston (1922), which the Court either decided or chose not to decide.

If you like this topic and are good at these kind of Internet searches, please, by all means, jump on in!
 
Last edited:
Here's a source for teachers:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/grolier/child_labor.htm

' . . . The battle appeared won in 1916 when, during the high tide of the progressive crusade, President Wilson wrestled through Congress the Keating-Owen Act, which barred from interstate commerce articles produced by child labor. The victory was brief, however, for a conservative Supreme Court in 1918 in Hammer v. Dagenhart declared the law unconstitutional because it infringed on states' rights and denied children the "freedom" to contract to work. Congress swiftly reenacted the measure as a part of the Revenue Act of 1919, this time outlawing products produced by children by putting a special tax on such products. In 1922 in the case of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, the Supreme Court again struck down the measure. . . '
Now, the first decision, Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), was a close 5-4 decision. But not the second decision.
 
This second major case Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) was decided 8-1. Well, this second Congressional law was an end around --- if we can't outlaw it directly, we'll hit it with a 10% tax --- and apparently, no one likes an end around.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095441261

' . . . Immediately following the unexpected invalidation of the first federal child labor law in 1918, Congress sought another way to protect dependent and exploited children in the workplace. With the two houses again virtually unanimous, the Child Labor Tax law was enacted (1919), its justification resting upon contemporary precedents, notably Chief Justice Edward D. White's opinion in McCray v. United States (1904), which sustained the imposition of confiscatory excises to end the production of offending articles.

'While White lived, the Court did not render a decision in the first child labor tax case, Atherton v. Johnston (1922), but, following his death, the new chief justice, William Howard Taft, massed the bench in Bailey to invalidate the Child Labor Tax. . . '
 
Maybe the Progressive Era could last just a little bit longer. The conventional answer is that this ended when all the highest hopes for World War I and the period following just didn't work out at all. And certainly a lot of people died, of all and no political stripes.

Well, the 19th Amendment finally acknowledging women have the same voting rights as men passed on August 18, 1920. And maybe the Progressive movement had other achievements into the '20s.

So perhaps, after the first Court case, run dual tracks, both the new law taxing child labor and a broader Constitutional amendment going after a lot of the objections to the court:

*proposed*

1. Corporations are not people and do not have the legal rights of people.

2. The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over matters of economic regulation.

.

.

.

This would draw into a broader coalition people in favor of such things as minimum wage, maximum hours, time-and-a-half for overtime, etc., and who strongly objected when the Court struck down such laws, including state laws. Meaning you'd energetically get the backing of organized labor behind this.

My AHC question is what additional sections to such a proposed amendment would make for even a broader, stronger coalition?

3. ______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
__________ .

4. ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________ .

And then, this might become the 19th Amendment, and Women's Right to Vote the 20th Amendment!
 
Last edited:
Top