1. United States v. Darby, (1941)

2. Facts: Darby was a Georgia lumber manufacturer who hired labor at less than the minimum wage prescribed in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. He was indicted on violating this Act, which sought to regulate the hours and wages of employees by prohibiting the sale of the product in interstate commerce.

3. Procedural Posture: Darby challenged the indictment, and the lower District Court quashed it, holding that it was unconstitutional because it sought to regulate “local” manufacturing activities.

4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power to prohibit shipments of product that are manufactured by employees who are paid less than a prescribed minimum wage and required to work more than a prescribed maximum number of hours.

5. Holding: Yes.

6. ∏ Argument: The Congress only has the power to regulate prohibit the shipment of products which are “bad” in themselves, such as toxic or stolen articles. This prohibition is motivated by the regulation of local wages, the control of which has been reserved to the states as police power, and so is trampling on the states’ rights.

7. ∆ Argument: In its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress has the implied power to exclude from commerce any articles which it perceives to be injurious to the public health and welfare.

8. Majority Reasoning: The fact that the state has not regulated this type of activity does not preclude the federal government from doing so; its powers are not limited by the inaction of the state. The motive and purpose behind a regulation are legislative concerns, and as long as the power is not exercised beyond the contemplation of the constitution, Congress is free to use the commerce power to implement public policy. Hammer v. Dagenhart, which limited Congress’ power to regulate only those objects which were themselves harmful, is overruled. The test for whether Congress can regulate an activity under the commerce power is whether the activity has a “substantial effect on the commerce or the exercise of the Congressional power over it.” Congress may choose the means necessary to achieve this end, even if it necessarily involves the control of intrastate actions.