Hammer v. Dagenhart
E64581
Hammer v. Dagenhart was a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down federal child labor regulations under the Commerce Clause, later repudiated as a symbol of restrictive interpretations of federal power.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hammer v. Dagenhart canonical | 5 |
| Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) | 1 |
| Hammer, United States Attorney, et al. v. Dagenhart et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T518028 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hammer v. Dagenhart Context triple: [United States v. Darby, overruledCase, Hammer v. Dagenhart]
-
A.
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.
-
B.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
C.
United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
-
D.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hammer v. Dagenhart Target entity description: Hammer v. Dagenhart was a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down federal child labor regulations under the Commerce Clause, later repudiated as a symbol of restrictive interpretations of federal power.
-
A.
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.
-
B.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
C.
United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
-
D.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark United States constitutional law case ⓘ |
| argued |
1917-12-13
ⓘ
1917-12-14 ⓘ |
| citation | 247 U.S. 251 ⓘ |
| concerns |
child labor in manufacturing plants
ⓘ
interstate commerce ⓘ |
| constitutionalIssue |
Commerce Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decidingCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1918-06-03 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| defendant | Roland H. Dagenhart ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ |
| era |
Lochner v. New York
ⓘ
surface form:
Lochner era
|
| fullCaseName |
Hammer v. Dagenhart
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Hammer, United States Attorney, et al. v. Dagenhart et al.
|
| hasJurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| held |
Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the production of goods intended for interstate commerce as a means of controlling child labor
ⓘ
regulation of production, including child labor in manufacturing, was a matter reserved to the states ⓘ |
| historicalReputation | repudiated precedent on federal commerce power ⓘ |
| impact | limited federal ability to regulate labor conditions through the Commerce Clause until New Deal era ⓘ |
| issueArea |
constitutional law
ⓘ
labor law ⓘ |
| joinedByInDissent |
John H. Clarke
ⓘ
Joseph McKenna ⓘ Justice Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ
surface form:
Louis D. Brandeis
|
| joinedByInMajority |
Edward D. White
ⓘ
Joseph Rucker Lamar ⓘ
surface form:
Joseph R. Lamar
Mahlon Pitney ⓘ Willis Van Devanter ⓘ |
| laterOverruledBy |
United States v. Darby
ⓘ
surface form:
United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
|
| legalSubject |
child labor regulation
ⓘ
federalism in the United States ⓘ scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William R. Day ⓘ |
| overruledInYear | 1941 ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 251 ⓘ |
| plaintiff | William C. Hammer ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | overruled ⓘ |
| reargued |
1918-01-28
ⓘ
1918-01-29 ⓘ |
| relatedToStatute | Keating–Owen Child Labor Act ⓘ |
| struckDown |
Keating–Owen Child Labor Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Keating–Owen Child Labor Act of 1916
|
| symbolOf | restrictive interpretation of federal power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 247 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1918 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Hammer v. Dagenhart Description of subject: Hammer v. Dagenhart was a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down federal child labor regulations under the Commerce Clause, later repudiated as a symbol of restrictive interpretations of federal power.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Hammer, United States Attorney, et al. v. Dagenhart et al.
this entity surface form:
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)