The opinion in this case explained why the law in question was different from the Mann Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the provisions upheld in the Lottery Case, because that law "did not regulate.
The opinion in this case explained why the law in question was different from the Mann Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the provisions upheld in the Lottery Case, because that law "did not regulate." This ruling stood for twenty-three years, until it was overturned in U.S. v. Darby Lumber Company. The opinion was written by William Rufus Day for the Edward White Court, which made this ruling 5-4 as McKenna, Clarke, and Brandeis joined in a dissent written by Holmes. It was brought against a U.S. Attorney in North Carolina by a man who objected to the Keating-Owen Act, which established a window of 6 A.M. to 7 P.M. and a lower age limit of fourteen. For 10 points, name this 1918 ruling which ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit child labor.
The opinion in this case explained why the law in question was different from the Mann Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the provisions upheld in the Lottery Case, because that law "did not regulate.
{Hammer} v. {Dagenhart} [either name, either order]