Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Patricia Georgiou on Protected: Pennsylvania v. Nelson 1956
- Mariana Lillig on Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. 1922
- Patricia Georgiou on Protected: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 1985
- Gerardo Acosta on Protected: Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. 1959
- Patricia Georgiou on Protected: Fletcher v. Peck 1810
Archives
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- November 2020
- June 2020
- March 2018
- July 2015
- June 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- June 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- July 2012
- April 2011
J.W. Hampton, Jr, & Co v U.S.
276 U.S. 394, 48 S. Ct. 348 (1928)
Facts:
J.W. Hampton imported barium dioxide into New York. The collector of customs assessed the barium dioxide at the rate of six cents per pound which is 2 cents above the fixed statute. However, the collector raised the rate as directed by the proclamation of the president. The Tariff act was passed by congress. The Act allows the president to raise tariffs under congressional authority and within set rules. The United States Customs Court held the act constitutional. The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Customs Appeals. The Attorney General assessed that the case’s impotence merits Supreme Court review.
Issues:
Was the Tariff act an unconstitutional delegation of commerce power to the executive?
Decision & Action:
No. The Act is constitutional and the commission was not a delegation of pure legislative power.
Reasoning of the Court:
Although congress cannot delegate purely legislative powers to a commision or the executive. Before the president reaches a conclusion on a duty, the commission investigates. Congress frequently utilizes officers of the executive within defined limits. Congress is not delegating legislative powers but rather conferrings the authority to execute the law.
Concurring Opinions: None
Dissenting Opinions: None
Voting Coalition: Unanimous.
Summary:
Congress may delegate the authority to execute the law but they may not delegate the authority to make laws. The Act is constitutional.
I. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States
II. 276 U.S. 394 (1928)
III. Congress passed the Tariff Act in 1928, which gave the executive branch the authority to tax imported goods. President Coolidge then raised the tax on barium dioxide above the amount stated in the Act itself. J.W. Hampton imported barium dioxide and refused to pay the raised tax, because they argued that Congress cannot delegate its powers to the executive.
IV. Can Congress delegate the power to tax to the executive branch?
V. Yes.
VI. The Court said that Congress could give the President the power to raise taxes, because there were set guidelines for what the President could and could not do. Like commissions, the President could not operate as a legislator. However, they could work under the guidelines set by Congress.
VII. No concurring opinions.
VIII. No dissenting opinions.
IX. The decision was unanimous.
X. This case was the first we dealt with that allowed Congress to delegate their powers. They did specify that any entity which has been given Congressional powers must adhere to guidelines set by Congress, but nevertheless it is an expansion of Congressional and Presidential power. Former-President Taft’s position on the Court and the Court’s expansion of Presidential power over foreign affairs played a role in this decision.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress, within “defined limits,” could vest discretion in Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution.
In a consistent choice, the Court held that Congress, inside “characterized limits,” could vest prudence in Executive officials to disclose guidelines and direct the subtleties of legal execution. The Court contended that the very rule that permitted Congress to fix rates in highway business likewise empowered it to transmit to a rate-production body heavily influenced by the Executive branch.
This decision hinges strongly on the fact the executive branch has to operate under “defined terms” when Congress delegates specific authorities. Congress can delegate the authority, but the executive branch still has to operate under the legislative purview.
https://youtu.be/lwSvA4PMsbw.
This case is confusing to me, I feel like we’re revisiting constitutional questions from earlier in the course. In this case though, the Court is finding that Congress CAN give the Executive the ability to make regulations without it being an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Here, I guess there are “defined limits” which make it more acceptable?
So, did they ever go back and overturn all of those cases where they said Congress delegating its legislative authority was unconstitutional? Because, while the Court might claim there isn’t a contradiction here, there clearly is. Those cases didn’t really leave much room for any exceptions, they made it pretty clear that delegation is never allowed under any circumstances. But they’re still in place, we just have cases that completely contradict each other now.
This case revolved around the Tariff Act of 1922, which gave the executive branch the authority to impose tariffs. A company sued the government as they believed this power could not be delegated to the executive branch. In this case, the court ruled that this was allowed as long as there are limits that are defined. This case reminds me of previous ones we have had. I think this has become somewhat common as the executive branch was allowed to have this problem before, like with the arms company in Bolivia.
I. J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Company v. United States
II. 276 U.S. 394 (1928)
III. Facts: The Tariff Act of 1922 gave the President the authority to impose taxes on articles of imported goods. J.W. Hampton & Company was then assessed a higher tax than the one in the Act.
IV: Issues:
(1) Did the Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the separation of powers as expressed in the Constitution?
V: Decision and Action:
(1) No.
VI: Reasoning: Per Taft.
(1) Congress may delegate their power to the Executive Branch to increase tariffs, as long as the tariffs fall into the categories set by Congress. It can not give its legislative power to a commission, but may allow a commission to operate for it under the guidelines it set..
VII. Concurrence(s): N/A.
VIII: Dissent(s): N/A.
IX: Voting Coalitions: (9 to 0). Unanimous.
X: Summary: J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Company v. United States affirmed that Congress may transfer its commerce power to another branch, if the branch adheres to the guidelines set by Congress.
XI: Free Space:
Sebastian MoscosoJun 7, 2021
In this case we see that congress does have the power to delegate. it is significant in that it is the first case that has to deal with this. The Tariff act lead to congress being able to delegate power to executive agencies.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Amy Siddiqui
Amy SiddiquiJun 7, 2021
In this case, there was a question related to the separation of powers, and the Court sided with Congress/the President. They cited the Child Labor Tax Case in their reasoning, stating that as long as the motive of Congress is to secure revenue, when it comes to taxing Congress is acting within their limits. Again, it’s made clear by the Court what Congress can do when it comes to taxing. They also say that the President wasn’t making the law, but executing an act of Congress.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Alex Nguyen
Alex NguyenJun 7, 2021
Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1922 which delegated the authority to set and impose custom duties on article of imported merchandise to the president. It was argued that this breached the separation of power but the court sided with congress saying this act was constitutional.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jarod Rhymes
Jarod RhymesJun 6, 2021
The Tariff Act of 1922 granted the authority to implement customs duties on imported goods. Supreme Court upheld the taxing abilities once again.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jacqueline Lopez
Jacqueline LopezJun 6, 2021
In 1922, the Tariff act was passed by Congress which delegated, to the executive branch, the authority to set and impose tariffs on imported goods. The executive branch increased the tariff amount for barium dioxide to a higher amount than what the statutory amount was. J.W Hampton Jr & Company was a licensed importer dealer who imported this item to the U.S and sued the U.S claiming Congress could not delegate its law making authority and tariff power to the executive branch. The U.S Supreme court ruled in favor of the government. This case reminds me of the 1936 case of United Stats v Curtis-Wright Corp where Congress affirmed that it is constitutional for the legislative branch to delegate its law making authority to the executive branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Cassidy McLernon
Cassidy McLernonJun 6, 2021
The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, and the company sought relief in the courts. They argued that the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violated the Separation of Powers principle. The Court unanimously ruled that Congress could vest discretion in Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution, as long as they were within the defined limits.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Itsawong Pongreangrong
Itsawong PongreangrongJun 5, 2021
The case concerns whether or not the Tariff Act of 1922 violates the constitution. The court ruled that Congress has rights to delegate executive branch to do so for this act as long as Congress informs what the limitation is to the exective branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
David Warszewik
David WarszewikJul 2, 2020
The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the legislative authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise, to an Executive branch agency to decide customs duty rates based on the statute. J.W. Hampton and Co. was assessed higher customs duty rate than was originally fixed by the Congressional Act.
Issue: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power violate the separation of powers?
No.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jamie Musso
Jamie MussoJun 9, 2020
This case declared that congressional powers of delegation is implied. I thought though that powers could not be delegated through the branches according to the separation of powers clause. It is stated that congress could delegate its powers as long as congress “provides an intelligible principle to guide the executive branch?” Does this mean that congress could only delegate these powers to the executive branch?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Augustas Tamavicius
Augustas TamaviciusJun 5, 2020
This case fundamentally centers around the separation of powers clause. J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. argued that the President’s custom tax on their articles of imported merchandise was unconstitutional because Congress were delegating their powers of taxation to the executive branch. The Supreme Court upheld the President’s tax, stating Congress could direct the executive branch to make regulations via taxation.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Amy Gordon
Amy GordonJun 5, 2020
This case asked whether or not the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce powers to the federal government was in violation of the separation of powers. The power of Congress to grant these powers to the executive branch in limited jurisdictions was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Sarita Cavazos
Sarita CavazosJun 5, 2020
in this case, the court ruled that congress held the constitutional power to delegate taxation laws to the executive branch in order to impose tariffs. something that the current administration has thoroughly enjoyed
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kiera Gnatz
Kiera GnatzJun 5, 2020
In the aftermath of this ruling, Congress, within “defined limits,” can vest power in the Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution now
Reply
Kiera Gnatz
Kiera Gnatz
I’m curious about the non-delegation doctrine’s relationship to this
Jun 5, 2020•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Brianna Moling
Brianna MolingJun 5, 2020
The Court ruled that Congress could give some taxing power to the Executive Branch to make regulations. At this point it seems like Congress has unlimited power when it comes to taxing, and deciding who can tax and who/what will be taxed.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Krystal Garcia Centeno
Krystal Garcia CentenoJun 5, 2020
Another case showing Congress can use its taxing power for purposes other than raising revenue
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Crystal Quevedo
Crystal QuevedoJun 5, 2020
Congress delegates some taxing power to the executive branch, and the court let’s it slide. Just in case the executive branch wasn’t already powerful enough…
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Mara Ortiz
Mara OrtizJun 4, 2020
Why is congress always so ready to hand over power to the executive? And why is the court always so ready to say its ok? Come on! The court ruled that it was not unconstitutional for congress to delegate part of its power to make public regulations to the executive as long as congress set out clearly defined rules and guidelines.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jared Cuthbertson
Jared CuthbertsonJun 4, 2020
This case feels very vague to me; I feel as if the decision of the court leaves further room for interpretation. The court held that Congress could, within reason, delegate some power to an executive commission when it comes to setting tariffs as long as they remained in the rules set by Congress.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Johanna Fernandez
Johanna FernandezJun 4, 2020
Congress was directly giving power to an Executive branch that was constitutionally a congressional power. This would go back to the start of giving the executive branch more power that could not be really checked.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Johnathon Giesecke
Johnathon GieseckeJun 4, 2020
The court rules that congress could delegate the ability tome public regulations to the executive branch. This acts as an expansion of executive power, as long as congress delegates that power.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Matt Springer
Matt SpringerJun 4, 2020
In J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States, the Constitutional question is did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power, a power delegated to Congress in Article 1, to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers? The Court, in a unanimous decision, said no
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
April Quevedo
April QuevedoJun 4, 2020
In Hampton Jr. & Co. v US, the Court ruled that the legislative may delegate part of its ability to make public regulations. They did this by providing clear expectations and guidelines to the president on how to do such a thing, essentially expanding presidential power.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Martin Tully
Martin TullyJun 4, 2020
An “intelligible principle” is needed if the executive branch can obtain power from Congress.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Cheyenne Henry
Cheyenne HenryJun 4, 2020
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress, within “defined limits,” could vest discretion in Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Justyna Kucharczyk
Justyna KucharczykJun 4, 2020
This case is significant because the Court decided that the power to legislate, a power GIVEN sole to Congress, may be delegated through an implied power of Congress. This is an example of the expanding power of the Executive Branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Christopher Mathew
Christopher MathewJun 4, 2020
The Court ruled that Congress can delegate its powers of taxation to the executive branch, another implied power.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Tess Manke
Tess MankeJun 4, 2020
Per a proclamation of the President, J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. were held to a higher customs duty than the Tariff Act of 1922 laid out, so they brought suit against it. Question: Did the Tariff Act violate the Separation of Powers doctrine because some of its commerce power was delegated to the President in this case? The Court ruled unanimously that the Act did not violate the Separation of Powers doctrine because Congress did have (limited) powers to delegate/direct the details of executing statutes.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Sana Ali
Sana AliJun 13, 2019
the delegation of legislative power is an implied power of Congress
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Blanca Henkle
Blanca HenkleJun 9, 2019
Congress delegated legislative power to the Executive branch under the “foreign affairs” premise which gave the President power to impose tariffs.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jacob Mattenson
Jacob MattensonJun 8, 2019
This case gave legal authority to Congress to delegate its authority to the Executive on certain issues. This is another in a long line of rulings which have increased the power of the Executive over the years, and to my mind, a risk to the whole idea of separation of powers.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 16, 2018
The Court here blends the Legislative and Executive branches of Gov’t together as it applies to the enforcement of duties. I disagree with the Court’s finding here as it is conferring a legislative duty to the Executive branch, which is a violation of non-delegation.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 15, 2018
Congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an comprehensible principle to guide the executive branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 14, 2018
Allowed for the Executive branch to receive delegated powers from Congress with specific limits.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Andrew Tuider
Andrew TuiderJun 13, 2018
This case answered 2 questions: 1. It is not unconstitutional for Congres to delegate commerce power to the Executive branch, within defined Limits. 2. Congress may use taxing power for other reasons other than simply raising revenue.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 11, 2018
The case holds great importance due to the fact that extends the delegation of legislative authority to the field of taxation
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 10, 2018
Question: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?
Holding: No
Reasoning: The Court held that Congress, within “defined limits,” could vest discretion in Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution. The Court argued that the same principle that allowed Congress to fix rates in interstate commerce also enabled it to remit to a rate-making body under the control of the Executive branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 9, 2018
The Court held that Congress, within “defined limits,” could vest discretion in Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution. The Court argued that the same principle that allowed Congress to fix rates in interstate commerce also enabled it to remit to a rate-making body under the control of the Executive branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 8, 2018
The Court argued that the same principle that allowed Congress to fix rates in interstate commerce also enabled it to remit to a rate-making body under the control of the Executive branch.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 6, 2018
Based on the Court’s decision in this case, the power to legislate is solely given to Congress according to Article 1 Section 2.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userNov 16, 2017
Holding/Reasoning: Justice Taft
Congress can delegate certain acts to the President as long as Congress has also supplied the President with a clear outline of rules to follow. To ensure that there was a flexible rate on the barium dioxide, Congress deemed it necessary to allow the president to raise or lower tariffs. Because Congress already relies on an executive commission to set the tariffs, there is no problem allowing Congress to employ the executive branch in appropriately adapting tariffs to changing trade conditions.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userNov 15, 2017
The Tariff Act apparently doesn’t violate the separation of Powers because it was fine within the “defined limits” that the USSC set.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userNov 14, 2017
Constitutional Question: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers doctrine?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userNov 14, 2017
The ruling in this case greatly expands the power of Congress in regards to delegating power under the commerce clause. The ruling also expands the power that was afforded to the President.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userNov 8, 2016
This is a landmark case because it rules that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power and is deemed constitutional.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userNov 8, 2016
Constitutional question: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle? No
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 5, 2015
Is the Tariff Act of 1922 an unconstitutional delegation of congressional taxing authority to the President?-NO.
Can Congress use its taxing power for purposes other than raising revenue?-yes!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 5, 2015
sigfificance: extends the delegation of taxes (tarriffs) to the president
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userJun 5, 2015
Class Notes:
The Tariff Act of 1922 authorized the president to raise or lower duties on products imported into the U.S.
President Coolidge Tariff on barium oxide
Tariff: a schedule of duties imposed by a government on imported goods, politics some of us call this protectionism.
Reply