J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States
 | |
| J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States | |
| Reference: 276 U.S. 394 | |
| Term: 1927 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: March 1, 1928 Decided: April 9, 1928 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Court of Customs Appeals affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice William Howard Taft • Louis Brandeis • Pierce Butler • Willis Van Devanter • Oliver Wendell Holmes • James Clark McReynolds • Edward Terry Sanford • Harlan Fiske Stone • George Sutherland | |
J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States is a case decided on April 9, 1928, by the United States Supreme Court that concerned the president's exercise of a congressional delegation of authority to adjust tariff rates to protect American business. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Customs Appeals, holding that Congress did not violate the Constitution because the authority and discretion delegated to the president was not legislative in nature.[1][2][3][4]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case formulated the intelligible principle standard as a legal test for whether or not a delegation of authority by Congress to the executive branch violates the separation of powers and the related nondelegation doctrine. Writing for the court, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued, "If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power."
Background
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Nondelegation |
| •Nondelegation doctrine • Timeline • Court cases • Arguments for and against • Reform proposals • Scholarly work |
| More pillars |
| • Judicial deference • Executive control of agencies • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
The firm J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company imported barium dioxide into New York and was assessed an import duty of six cents per pound, two cents more than the rate originally specified by law. The collector of customs had raised the rate pursuant to a presidential proclamation issued under the Tariff Act of 1922. The act authorized the president to adjust the duties imposed by the act and provided criteria for determining adjustments.[2]
The firm brought suit in United States Customs Court, claiming that the Tariff Act of 1922 made an improper delegation of legislative power and was thus unconstitutional. The customs court held that the act was constitutional. The Court of Customs Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on May 10, 1927.[2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on March 1, 1928. The case was decided on April 9, 1928.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 9-0 to uphold the Tariff Act of 1922 and its delegation of authority to the executive branch. Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the opinion of the court.[1][2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the court, argued that the Tariff Act of 1922 did not contain an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority because Congress provided the president with instructions on when and how to adjust the tariff rates established by the law:[2]
| “ | The same principle that permits Congress to exercise its ratemaking power in interstate commerce by declaring the rule which shall prevail in the legislative fixing of rates, and enables it to remit to a ratemaking body created in accordance with its provisions the fixing of such rates, justifies a similar provision for the fixing of customs duties on imported merchandise. If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.[5] | ” |
| —Chief Justice William Howard Taft, majority opinion in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States[2] | ||
To support this argument, Taft referred to the Supreme Court's opinion in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark (1890), a case concerning a law that directed the president to impose import duties on certain goods if he determined that the exporting country was unfairly taxing American exports. Taft distinguished between legislative power, the authority to determine the content of the law, and executive power, the authority to execute laws made by a legislature:[2]
| “ | It was contended that this section delegated to the President both legislative and treatymaking powers, and was unconstitutional. After an examination of all the authorities, the Court said that, while Congress could not delegate legislative power to the President, this Act did not in any real sense invest the President with the power of legislation, because nothing involving the expediency or just operation of such legislation was left to the determination of the President; that the legislative power was exercised when Congress declared that the suspension should take effect upon a named contingency. What the President was required to do was merely in execution of the Act of Congress. It was not the making of law. He was the mere agent of the lawmaking department to ascertain and declare the event upon which its expressed will was to take effect.[5] | ” |
| —Chief Justice William Howard Taft, majority opinion in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States[2] | ||
Taft's opinion also addressed a second constitutional challenge brought by J.W. Hampton Jr. and Company. The firm contended that Congress may only impose taxes for the purpose of generating revenue. The firm argued that the Tariff Act of 1922 was unconstitutional because Congress had imposed the act's import duties in order to protect American industries. Taft rejected this reasoning, arguing that Congress could have additional motives for implementing a tax as long as the tax also had the purpose and effect of raising revenue:[2]
| “ | The second objection to § 315 is that the declared plan of Congress, either expressly or by clear implication, formulates its rule to guide the President and his advisory Tariff Commission as one directed to a tariff system of protection that will avoid damaging competition to the country's industries by the importation of goods from other countries at too low a rate to equalize foreign and domestic competition in the markets of the United States. It is contended that the only power of Congress in the levying of customs duties is to create revenue, and that it is unconstitutional to frame the customs duties with any other view than that of revenue raising. ... So long as the motive of Congress and the effect of its legislative action are to secure revenue for the benefit of the general government, the existence of other motives in the selection of the subjects of taxes cannot invalidate congressional action.[5] | ” |
| —Chief Justice William Howard Taft, majority opinion in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Nondelegation doctrine and Separation of powers
Congressional delegation to the executive branch has been an issue in federal court cases since at least the early 19th century. The Supreme Court's decision in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States formulated the intelligible principle standard as a legal test for whether or not a delegation of authority by Congress to the executive branch violates the separation of powers principle and the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court held that Congress did not delegate legislative power to the executive because it provided the president with clear instructions on when and how to adjust the tariff rates established by the law. Writing for the court, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued, "If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power." Taft referred to the decision of the court in the 1892 case Field v. Clark to support this reasoning.[1][2][3][4][6]
In Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution, Joseph Francis Menez and John R. Vile explained the court's ruling in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States in the following way:[4]
| “ | The Court held that the true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; the second, as was the case here, is valid.[5] | ” |
| —Joseph Francis Menez and John R. Vile, Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution (2004)[4] | ||
The Supreme Court would rely on the reasoning in this case in two subsequent decisions, A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, to invalidate provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act passed by Congress and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[7][6][8][9]
See also
- Court cases related to federalism
- Nondelegation doctrine
- Separation of powers
- The Taft Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Oyez, "J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Company v. United States," accessed October 30, 2017
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 Justia, "J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States," accessed October 31, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, "Hampton & Co. v. United States," 1986
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution, 50th Anniversary Edition, 2004
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 SCOTUSblog, "SCOTUS for law students: Non-delegation doctrine returns after long hiatus," December 4, 2014
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Nondelegation Doctrine," accessed September 5, 2017
- ↑ FindLaw, "Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.," February 27, 2001
- ↑ Justia, "Delegation and Individual Liberties," accessed September 10, 2017
| |||||||||||
