Labor Standards Act
Of the many cases Margolin argued before the Supreme Court, particular importance is attached to the following examples. In , Margolin’s arguments resulted in a decision that the Department need not show that violations of a court decree to comply with provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act were willful in order for a court to find the respondent in contempt. This particular decision brought to an end litigation between the company and the Department that had lasted more than five years, and it confirmed that contempt of court could be used by the Department to enforce the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case of , argued by Margolin, provided a clear definition of "engaged in commerce" and thus made clear what types of employees were covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The decision clarified that the Department's enforcement authority included those who work on plans, drawings and specifications.