Difference between revisions of "Darby Lumber Company v. United States (1941)"
From Federalism in America
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Darby Lumber Company v. United States'' (1941), the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] sustained the constitutionality of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which set minimum wages and other working conditions for employees in all businesses (including manufacturing) engaged in interstate commerce. In its decision, the Court explicitly overruled ''Hammer v. Dagenhart'' (1918) and dismissed arguments that the FLSA invaded powers reserved to the states by the [[Tenth Amendment]], referring to that amendment as “but a truism.” | + | In ''Darby Lumber Company v. United States'' (1941), the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] sustained the constitutionality of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which set minimum wages and other working conditions for employees in all businesses (including manufacturing) engaged in interstate commerce. In its decision, the Court explicitly overruled ''[[Hammer v. Dagenhart]]'' (1918) and dismissed arguments that the FLSA invaded powers reserved to the states by the [[Tenth Amendment]], referring to that amendment as “but a truism.” |
==== Ellis Katz ==== | ==== Ellis Katz ==== | ||
Revision as of 19:04, 13 August 2018
In Darby Lumber Company v. United States (1941), the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which set minimum wages and other working conditions for employees in all businesses (including manufacturing) engaged in interstate commerce. In its decision, the Court explicitly overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) and dismissed arguments that the FLSA invaded powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, referring to that amendment as “but a truism.”
Ellis Katz
Last updated: 2006
SEE ALSO: Hammer v. Dagenhart; Tenth Amendment