Home » LAW » J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States 1928

J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States 1928


11 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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:

  8. 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

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php