Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 7–8, 1922
Decided May 15, 1922
Full case name J. W. Bailey and J. W. Bailey, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of North Carolina v. Drexel Furniture Company
Citations 259 U.S. 20 (more)
42 S. Ct. 449; 66 L. Ed. 817; 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2458; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 3156; 1922-2 C.B. 337; 21 A.L.R. 1432; 1922 P.H. P17,023
Prior history Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina
Holding
Congress improperly penalized employers for using child labor.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Taft, joined by McKenna, Holmes, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis
Dissent Clarke

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)[1], was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as an improper attempt by Congress to penalize employers using child labor. The Court indicated that the tax imposed by the statute was actually a penalty in disguise.

The Court later abandoned the philosophy underlying the Bailey case. For example, see United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953), overruled on other grounds, Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).

Contents

Background

On February 24, 1919, Congress passed the Child Labor Tax Law which imposed an excise tax of 10 percent on the net profits of a company that employed children. The law defined child labor as “under the age of sixteen in any mine or quarry, and under the age of fourteen in any mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing establishment.” The definition also included the use of children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who worked more than eight hours a day or more than six days a week, or who worked between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” Drexel was a furniture manufacturing company in North Carolina.

On September 21, 1921, a collector from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (now the Internal Revenue Service) assessed $6,312.79 in excise taxes for employing a child under fourteen during the 1919 tax year. Drexel paid the tax under protest and sued for a refund.

Procedural history

Drexel’s main argument was that the tax was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate manufacturing. The United States argued that the statute as an indirect tax did not need to meet a standard as long as it was geographically uniform. In addition, the government contended that the tax was merely an excise tax levied by Congress under its broad power of taxation under Article One of the Constitution. The lower court ruled in favor of the company.

Issue presented

Did Congress violate the Constitution by passing the Child Labor Tax Law as a means to regulate or eliminate child labor, a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment?

Holding

Chief Justice Taft's Court declared the tax on child labor was unconstitutional because it was a penalty, not a tax, on employment of children. In addition, the Child Labor Tax Law is a regulation on businesses instead of a tax.

Reasoning

Taft argued the law describes a set course for businesses and when they deviate from that course, a payment is enacted. Taft said, “Scienters are associated with penalties, not with taxes.” “[A] court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax is imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed.” Taft said that the court must commit itself to the highest law of the land and the duty of the court, even though it requires them to refuse legislation designed to promote the highest good. He went on to say that the good sought in unconstitutional legislation leads citizens and legislators down a dangerous path of breaching the constitution and recognized standards. In addition, Congress could take control of many areas of public interest, which the States have control over reserved by the Tenth Amendment, by enacting regulating subjects and enforcing them by a so-called “tax.” This would break down the constitutional limitations on Congress and eliminate the sovereignty of States. A tax is a source of revenue for the government, while a penalty is a regulation and punishment for a certain behavior.

Implications

One possible criticism is that the decision in Drexel was a reversal of the Supreme Court’s position on excise taxes since the early 19th century and that this decision is out of line with Supreme Court rulings before and after. As a general rule, the court repeatedly favored the federal power to tax. In other cases, the court has upheld Congress’s excise tax on narcotics, marijuana, and firearms.[citation needed] Even with the firearms case, the Court admitted the law was unmistakably a legislative purpose to regulate rather than tax.

Previously, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, the Court ruled a law prohibiting the transportation in interstate commerce of goods manufactured with child labor was unconstitutional. After the court rejected both attempts by Congress to regulate child labor, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment which would give the national government the power to regulate and prohibit child labor. Unlike most proposed amendments, this did not have a deadline for state’s ratification. The proposed amendment eventually failed to achieve ratification, as many states passed their own child labor laws, making a federal amendment unnecessary. In addition, in 1938, Congress enacted Section 212 of the Fair Labor Standards Act which prohibited the transportation of goods in interstate commerce made from "oppressive child labor."[2]

See also

References

  1. ^ 259 U.S. 20 (Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com)
  2. ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc29.wais&start=571916&SIZE=4418&TYPE=TEXT Retrieved 2010-03-26.

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужен реферат?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Child Labor Tax Case — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. ArgueDateA=March 7 ArgueDateB=8 ArgueYear=1922 DecideDate=May 15 DecideYear=1922 FullName=J. W. Bailey and J. W. Bailey, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of North Carolina v.… …   Wikipedia

  • Taxing and Spending Clause — Article I, , Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the… …   Wikipedia

  • Ère Lochner — L ère Lochner désigne une période de l histoire des Etats Unis et en particulier de la Cour suprême, durant laquelle celle ci s opposait à toute régulation concernant le droit du travail au nom d un laissez faire généralisé. Si le nom provient de …   Wikipédia en Français

  • John Hessin Clarke — Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court In office July 24, 1916[1] – September …   Wikipedia

  • William Howard Taft — For other people named William Howard Taft, see William Howard Taft (disambiguation). William Howard Taft 27th President of the United States In office March 4, 1909 …   Wikipedia

  • Lochner era — The Lochner era is a period in from roughly 1890 to 1937 in which the United States Supreme Court tended to strike down economic regulations mandating certain working conditions or wages, or limiting working hours. In the eponymous 1905 case of… …   Wikipedia

  • List of youth rights topics — This is an incomplete list of articles that are relevant to youth rights, which can or may never satisfy any objective standard for completeness. Revisions and additions are welcome. A*Adultcentrism *Adultism *Age of candidacy *Age of consent… …   Wikipedia

  • internal revenue tax — An exaction for the support of the federal government; a contribution imposed on individuals by the government for its services. Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co. 259 US 20, 66 L Ed 817, 42 S Ct 449, 21 ALR 1432. More narrowly defined as federal… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • tax — A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition, or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide public revenue for… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • Business and Industry Review — ▪ 1999 Introduction Overview        Annual Average Rates of Growth of Manufacturing Output, 1980 97, Table Pattern of Output, 1994 97, Table Index Numbers of Production, Employment, and Productivity in Manufacturing Industries, Table (For Annual… …   Universalium

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”