The Court's decision was based on the principle of federalism and its interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Here's a breakdown:
* Federalism: The Court argued that the Act was an unconstitutional intrusion into the reserved powers of the states to regulate labor within their borders. They believed that child labor was a matter for individual state legislatures to address, not the federal government.
* Commerce Clause: The Court interpreted the Commerce Clause narrowly. They ruled that the Act exceeded Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce because it aimed to regulate the manufacture of goods, not their transport across state lines. They argued that the Act targeted production, which was seen as a purely local matter, rather than commerce.
The Court's decision was controversial and sparked a debate about the scope of federal power. It ultimately led to the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and established a national minimum wage and regulated child labor.
Key takeaway: The Supreme Court's decision in Hammer v. Dagenhart reflected its concern about federal overreach and its narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause at the time. However, this decision ultimately paved the way for future legislation, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, which gave the federal government more authority to regulate labor standards, including those for child labor.