Case Brief

Case Name: United States v. Darby (p. 144)

Citation: 312 U.S. 100 (1941)

Votes:

Author: J. Stone

Concurrences: Unanimous Decision

Dissent: none

Parties: United States = Appellant

Darby = Appellee

Facts: Darby is a lumber manufacture company in Georgia. They were not found at fault in District Court because they ruled that Congress couldn't rule or infringe on local manufacturing activities.

Procedural History: The U.S Congress found that Darby Lumber was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate court ruled that this Act was unconstitutional because the U.S Congress violated the 10th amendment.

U.S Congress took this matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues: (1) Does the Congress have power prohibit the shipment of lumber meaning can they enforce the FLS Act?

(2) Is the FLS Act Constitutional?

Holdings: (1) Under the Fair Labor Standards Act the US Congress had the power to regulate employment conditions.

(2) Under the Commerce Clause the FLS Act is constitutional therefore giving the congress power to regulate to matter.

Legal Reasoning: (1) Under the FLS Act it requires employers to conform to the wage and hour provisions so that they can engage in interstate commerce. This basically means that a worker has to get paid at least the legal minimum so that they can partake in the process of interstate commerce. For example if I was a farmer and I only paid my employees $1 when the minimum wage is $2 I can't partake in interstate commerce because I am not paying them the right wage.

Judgment: The Supreme Court overturned the district court's decision

Dissents/Counterarguments: For this case there wasn't an apposing side.

Comments: This is a real interesting case for a few reasons. 1st because it defines that although the workers are not actually in the process of selling the lumber and are just manufacturing it they are apart of the process as a whole thus being apart of interstate commerce themselves making their wages an issues with the US Congress. The other reason why I thought that this was interesting was how different the appellate court and the Supreme Court saw how the constitution should be read. The appellate court seemed that it wasn't in the powers of the US Congress to regulate the matter because of the 10th amendment granted that power to Georgia. However the Supreme Court felt as thought because the workers were apart of the process of interstate commerce they should be considered as federal issues.

Case Name: United States v. Lopez

Citation: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Vote: 5-4

Author: C.J Rehnquist

Concurrences: O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Breyer,