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

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


43 Comments

  1. Tariff Act of 1922. Examines presidential powers regarding tariffs. Court rules that congress, not the president has exclusive power to impose taxes on imports.

  2. The Tariff Act of 1922, which gave the President the authority to modify tariffs to balance the costs of producing goods domestically and abroad in competition, was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in this case. The Court determined that Congress’s provision of a “intelligible principle” to direct the executive branch made the delegation of power constitutional.

  3. Facts: The Tariff Act of 1922 allowed the president to raise and lower duties on products that were imported to the U.S. The tax was designed to protect the industries from competition. President Coolidge raised the duty on barium dioxide from .02 per lb to .06. Hampton disagreed with the increase.

    Question: Was the act unconstitutional due to the authority given to the president by Congress?

    Decision: no, unanimous.

  4. The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. When, under a proclamation of the President at the time, the Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, the company sought relief in the courts. 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.

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

    Facts: The Tariff Act of 1922, allowed the president to increase or decrease duties in order to equalize differences between costs of domestic and foreign production. The U. S was taken to court due to the increase in BO, since the president had delegated power increase the price.

    Ruling: Executive and their advisors are allowed to create certain limitations and also in which the President could pass tariffs, so the President was within his constitutional limits to issue tariffs.

  6. J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States 1928
    facts: The tariff Act of 1922 allowed the president to increase or decrease duties in order to equalize differences between costs of domestic and foreign production. When JW Hampton & co (Barium oxide case) was assessed higher custom duty than was fixed by statute, they took the US to court, saying that this delegation of powers was an overstep of executive abilities.
    Q: Was the delegation of power under the act unconstitutional?
    A:No
    Reasoning: The executive and his advisors, in this case, are best suited to carrying out accurate policy and plan because they have investigative abilities to do so. Since he is acting within defined limits, this delegation of power does not constitute a threat to separation of powers.

  7. The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated tariff authority to the President. Coolidge raised the duty on barium dioxide. J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. was an importer of this chemical and challenged his authority. The company contended that the Act was an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the President and that a tariff/tax protecting American industry is invalid because Congress is only allowed to collect taxes to raise revenue. Congress properly prescribed the boundaries in which the President could pass tariffs, so the President was within his constitutional limits to issue tariffs. The Court relied on a previous decision, U.S v. Doremus, to affirm the idea that Congress can use their taxing power however they want.

  8. JW Hampton Jr and Co v. United States

    276 US 394 (1928)

    Rule of Law: Congress may delegate certain acts to the president, as long as Congress has legislated clear principles for the president to follow

    Facts: JW Hampton, Jr & Co was an importer of barium dioxide. The statutory tariff on barium dioxide was 4 cents per pound. Under section 315 of Title III of the Tariff Act, the president was authorized to appoint a Tariff Commission. With the Tariff Commission’s advice and in accordance with specific guidelines, the president was empowered to adjust tariff rates. Under these provisions, the president increased the tariff on barium from 4 to 6 cents.

    Issue: May Congress delegate certain acts to the president if Congress legislated clear principles for the president to follow?

    Holding: Unanimous decision

    Reasoning: Yes, Congress may delegate certain acts to the president, as long as Congress has enacted clear principles for the president to follow. If Congress sets forth rules and requires the president to apply these rules, there is no impermissible delegation of legislative power.

  9. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States, decided in 1928, was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the delegation of legislative power by Congress to the executive branch. The case is notable for its impact on the non-delegation doctrine, which concerns the constitutional limits on Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative powers to other branches of government.

    In this case, the issue was the constitutionality of the Tariff Act of 1922, specifically a provision that allowed the President of the United States to adjust tariff rates based on certain conditions. The Tariff Act gave the President the authority to modify tariff rates to equalize production costs between domestic and foreign producers. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co., an importer, challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing that it amounted to an improper delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the constitutionality of the delegation. The Court established a two-part test to determine the validity of delegated authority:

    Congress must provide an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive branch in exercising the delegated authority.
    The statute must specify the “policy” and the “standards” that the executive is to follow.
    The Court found that the Tariff Act met these criteria by providing clear policy objectives and standards for the President to follow in adjusting tariff rates. The decision affirmed the principle that Congress could delegate certain legislative powers to the executive branch as long as there were adequate guidelines and limitations in the enabling legislation.

    While J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States did not eliminate the non-delegation doctrine, it set a precedent for a relatively permissive approach to delegated legislative authority, allowing Congress to grant broad discretionary powers to administrative agencies and the executive branch, provided there were sufficient guidelines and standards.

  10. Congress may delegate certain acts to the president, as long as Congress has legislated clear principles for the president to follow.

    J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. was an importer of barium dioxide. The statutory tariff on barium dioxide was four cents per pound. Under § 315 of Title III of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. §§ 154–59 the president was authorized to appoint a Tariff Commission. Further, with the Tariff Commission’s advice and in accordance with specific guidelines, the president was empowered to adjust tariff rates. Under these provisions, the president increased the tariff on barium dioxide from four to six cents. Hampton was assessed six cents per pound on its barium dioxide, despite the statutory tariff amount remaining at four cents per pound. Hampton appealed the six-cent tariff, arguing that Congress had illegally delegated its legislative powers to the president by authorizing the president to set tariff rates.

    Congress may delegate certain acts to the president, as long as Congress has enacted clear principles for the president to follow. If Congress sets forth rules and requires the president to apply these rules, there is no impermissible delegation of legislative power. In this case, Congress set the tariff for barium dioxide at four cents per pound, but anticipated that changing conditions might make it appropriate to increase or decrease the tariff in the future. Congress may employ the executive branch in appropriately adapting tariffs to changing trade conditions. Because Congress gave the president clear principles by which to reset tariffs, Congress did not impermissibly delegate its legislative powers to the executive.

  11. Case: J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States
    276 U.S. 394 (1928)

    Facts: A landmark case in the U.S. that dealt with the constitutional question of whether taxes laws could be deemed unconstitutional if they were found to be arbitrary and capricious. A company dealing with the selling of raw sugar had a tax imposed by the federal government. JW Hampton argued it was unconstitutional. The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. When, under a proclamation of the President, J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, the company sought relief in the courts.

  12. JW Hampton Jr & Co. v US
    276 US 394 (1928)
    Facts: JW Hampton was assessed higher costumes taxes due to the Tariff Act of 1922 that delegated the authority of setting and imposing tariffs. The president set the higher custom tax.
    Question: Did the tariff act delegation of power to the executive violate the separation of powers?
    Opinion: no. unanimous
    Reasoning: congress can delegate power within “defined limits” to the executive.

  13. Facts of the Case: J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

    The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. When, under a proclamation of the President, J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, the company sought relief in the courts.

    Issue: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?

    Ruling: 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

    Reasoning: 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.”

    No Dissenting Opinion

  14. Name and Citation: J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States 276 U.S. 396

    Facts: Tarriff Act of 1922 gave executive power to tax imported goods. President Coolidge then raised a tax on Barium Dioxide. JW Hampton didn’t pay the tax because it wasn’t the executive function found in the constitution.

    Question:
    (1) did the Tariff act delegation of power to the executive branch violate the separation of powers?
    (2) Whether Congress may use its taxing power for purposes other than just raising revenue?

    Opinion: No, yes

    Reasoning: court held that Congress was within its power. As long as one of the motives of the law is to secure revenue, for the benefit of the general people, then it is constitutional

  15. Facts: The president was given the authority to change the tariffs on goods imported into the United States by the Tariff Act of 1922 (a delegation of powers from the legislative to the executive branch). Barium dioxide duties were increased from 0.02 to 0.06 per pound. The JW Hampton, a barium dioxide importer, objected to the rise in prices. the corporation argued that the act is unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized delegation of powers. Second, the act is unlawful because Congress’s authority to impose and collect taxes is restricted to collecting revenue, notwithstanding the fact that the statute’s goal is to safeguard American industries.

    Question: Whether the tariff act of 1922 is an unconstitutional delegation of congressional taxing authority t to the president?

    Ruling: No

    reasoning: The Court ruled that Executive officials might be given authority by Congress to establish public regulations and oversee the specifics of statutory execution, as long as they stayed within “defined limits.” The Court contended that Congress might remit to a body that sets rates but is under the authority of the Executive branch under the same basis that permits it to set rates in interstate commerce.

  16. The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. Under a proclamation of the President, J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, the company sought relief in the courts

    Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?

    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. 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.

  17. Facts
    1922 Tariff act delegated authority to set and impose customs taxes on imported goods
    Authorized the president to raise or lower duties on products imported
    President coolidge raised the duty on barium oxide
    J.W. hampton who imported barium oxide did not pay the tariff
    Question
    Was the tariff act unconstitutional, NO
    May congress use its taxing power for purposes other than just raising revenue, Yes
    Decision
    Unanimous decision
    This act was constitutional
    If atleast one of the motives of the law is to secure revenue then it is constitutional

  18. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States
    276 U.S. 396 (1928)
    Facts of the Case: The Tariff Act of 1928 gave the executive branch the power to tax imported goods as President Coolidge raised the tax on barium dioxide. J.W. Hampton didn’t pay the raised tax and argued it is not within the executive branch’s power to impose taxes.
    Legal Question: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of power to the executive branch violate the separation of powers?
    Holding: unanimous
    Court’s Opinion: The delegation of powers to the executive branch was considered constitutional as it is an implied power. This was merely to protect domestic industries.

  19. Case Name:
    J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

    Facts:
    J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Company was an importer that challenged the Tariff Act of 1922, also known as the Fordney-McCumber Act. This act authorized the President of the United States to modify tariff rates and adjust them based on the differences in production costs between the United States and foreign countries. The President was to receive recommendations from the Tariff Commission, but ultimately, the decision rested with the President. The company argued that this act delegated legislative power to the executive branch without providing an intelligible principle to guide the exercise of that power. They contended that such delegation was unconstitutional because it violated the principle of separation of powers outlined in the United States Constitution.

    Issue:
    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Tariff Act of 1922 unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President by allowing him to adjust tariff rates.

    Holding:
    The Supreme Court upheld the Tariff Act of 1922, finding that it did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

    **Reasoning:
    The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, held that the Tariff Act did not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The nondelegation doctrine is a principle in administrative law that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities or branches without appropriate guidelines. They reasoned that the Constitution does not require that all details of legislative execution be expressly delineated in the laws passed by Congress. Instead, the Constitution allows for Congress to seek assistance from the coordinate branches of government and to lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform. In the case of the Tariff Act, the Court found that Congress had provided an intelligible principle by directing the President to adjust tariffs based on the differences in production costs. The Tariff Commission would investigate and report these differences, and the President would then have the discretion to adjust the rates accordingly. The Court concluded that this was a permissible delegation of legislative authority.

    Conclusion:
    The Supreme Court’s decision in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States affirmed the constitutionality of the Tariff Act of 1922, holding that Congress had provided sufficient guidance to the executive branch in the form of an intelligible principle. Therefore, the delegation of authority to the President to adjust tariff rates was not unconstitutional.

    Significance:
    The significance of the J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States case lies in its establishment of the “intelligible principle” test for evaluating the delegation of legislative power. This test has since been used to determine the constitutionality of legislative delegations of authority to administrative agencies and the executive branch. The case stands as a foundational precedent in administrative law, shaping the contours of the nondelegation doctrine and the permissible scope of executive action under legislative mandates.

  20. The decision of this case was interesting in comparison to previous cases that we have reviewed in 353. Previous cases such as Schechter Poultry co gave us the non-delegation theory which limited the ability of Congress to delegate its powers to the Executive Branch. In the case of J.W Hampton, Jr co. v. United States, the court ruled that Congress could delegate legislative power (the commerce clause) to the executive branch with very specific and defined limits/boundaries.

  21. In 1922, Congress passed the Tariff Act, which put customs duties on many types of merchandise. It’s Title III that’s most relevant because it allows the President (Warren G. Harding) to change the duties as he sees fit after an investigation is conducted. J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. was importing Barium Dioxide and was charged six cents per pound rather than the four cents stipulated in the Act; the Collector said that the President raised the tariff. Finding the extra 37 cents per pound after inflation atrocious (which it could be), the company used the government for exceeding its taxing authority by delegating it to the President.
    The Supreme Court did not agree and found that this form of delegation was perfectly Constitutional. Because the President is required to investigate the state of affairs before changing the tariff, which means that they need to make sure that a raise in tariffs is needed to protect American industries, which in certain circumstances can fall under the powers of the Executive Branch.

  22. J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928): The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated a degree of legislative power to the executive branch by authorizing it to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. However, due to a presidential proclamation, J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than the fixed amount by the statute, for which the company sought a remedy in court. The issue in question was whether Congress had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the executive branch through the Tariff Act. The Supreme Court upheld the act by ruling that congressional delegation of legislative authority was an implied power and, additionally, Congress had provided proper guidelines for the executive branch to follow.

  23. I. J. W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States 1928
    II. 276 US 396
    III. Facts: The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. When, under a proclamation of the President, J.W. Hampton & Co. was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, and the company sought relief in the courts.
    IV. Issue: Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?
    V. Decision and Action: No
    VI. 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.
    VII. Concurring Opinion: N/A
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion: N/A
    IX. Voting Coalition: 9-0; Unanimous for the United States.
    X. Summary: Congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive branch.

  24. The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the power to set and impose taxes on imported goods to the president. President Coolidge raised the taxes on barium dioxide to higher amount than what was written in law. As a result, J.W. Hampton and company was assessed a tax that was higher than the one mentioned in the law. In response, they sought financial relief in the court. The question before the Supreme Court was did the Tariff Act’s delegation of power to the executive branch violate separation of powers. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Congress could delegate limited power to the executive branch to make certain regulations.

  25. I. Name or Title of Case:
    J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States (1928)

    II. Legal Citation:
    276 U.S. 394 (1928)

    III. Statement of Facts:
    J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. imported goods from Germany and failed to comply with the Tariff Act of 1922, which required the goods to be marked with their country of origin. The company argued that the Act was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce

    IV. Statement of Issues:
    Whether or not the Tariff Act of 1922, specifically the provision requiring goods to be marked with their country of origin, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or exceeded Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

    V. Decision and Action:
    The Court ruled in favor of Butler, holding that the marking provision of the Tariff Act of 1922 did not violate the Due Process Clause or exceed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

    VI. Reasoning of the Court:
    The Court provided that the marking provision of the Tariff Act of 1922 served a legitimate purpose in providing consumers with information about the origin of imported goods. The Court also held that Congress had the authority to enact such a provision under its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court emphasized that the regulation of commerce included the power to impose reasonable conditions on imported goods.

    VII. Concurring Opinion(s):
    None.

    VIII. Dissenting Opinion(s):
    None.

    IX. Voting Coalition:
    The Court ruled in favor of Butler with a unanimous vote.

    X. Summary:
    This case reaffirmed the broad authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and impose conditions on imported goods. The decision emphasized the importance of providing consumers with accurate information about the origin of goods and ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. It set a precedent for future cases involving the constitutional validity of regulations on imported goods and the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.

  26. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States (276 U.S. 394 (1928)). The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to impose customs taxes on imported merchandise. The President, J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs tax than what was dictated by the statute. So they sought relief. The question becomes wether the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers doctrine. In a unanimous decision, the court held that could delegate the power to the executive branch under issues involving public regulations.

  27. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States
    276 U.S. 394 (1928)

    Facts:
    The Tariff Act in 1928 allowed the executive branch to tax imported goods. The tax of barium dioxide was raised by President Coolidge. J.W. Hampton refused to pay the raised tax, since he argued that Congress cannot give its power to the executive branch.

    Issue:
    Can Congress delegate the power to tax to the executive branch?

    Decision:
    Yes.

    Reasoning:
    The Court stated that each branch has its own set of guidlines and giving the ablity to the executive branch to raise taxes is constitutional if they act within their own guidelines.

    Concurring:
    None

    Dissenting:
    None

    Voting:
    The decision was unanimous.

    Summary:
    This case was the first we dealt with that allowed Congress to delegate their powers. Unlike some previous cases from the first two weeks, here we can see that the delegation of powers can be conditional but allowed.

  28. I. J. W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States
    II. 276 US 394 (1928)
    III. Facts: J.W. Hampton & Company sought legal recourse when they were charged a higher customs duty than what was established by statute, under the authority of the Tariff Act of 1922. The Act granted the power to determine and impose import tariffs on various goods. In this case, the company contested the imposition of the elevated duty, arguing that it exceeded the statutory limits. Their aim was to seek relief through the judicial system.
    IV. Issues:
    1. Did the Tariff Act’s delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?
    V. Decision and Action
    1. No
    VI. Reasoning Per Taft
    He upheld the constitutionality of this delegation of power, stating that Congress can delegate certain duties to the executive branch. The purpose was to protect domestic industries and ensure fair competition, and the President was authorized to determine and proclaim changes in duties based on investigations by the Tariff Commission.
    VII. Concurrence none
    VIII. Dissents:none
    IX. Coalitions: unanimous
    X. Summary: The Court stated that Congress had the authority to delegate discretion to Executive officers for creating public regulations and overseeing the execution of statutes, but within specific boundaries. The Court justified its stance by highlighting that the principle that allowed Congress to establish rates in interstate commerce also empowered it to delegate this responsibility to a rate-making body under the supervision of the Executive branch.

  29. I. J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States

    II. 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

    III. Tariff Act of 1928 delegated taxing power on imported goods to executive branch. President used it and created a higher than stated in Act tax on barium dioxide. Hampton was importing it and didn’t pay tax, also sued that this Act was unconstitutional, because of this delegation of powers.

    IV. Is delegating the power to tax to executive branch constitutional?

    V. Yes.

    VI. Court said, that they can delegate this power but need to create a guide to follow.

    VII. Concurring: none

    VIII. Dissenting: none

    IX. Unanimous

    X. Case showed that powers could be delegated from Congress, but only when they also provide a close guide to follow.

  30. I. Title: J.W. Hampton, Jr. And Co v United States (1928)
    II. 276 U.S. 394 (1928)
    III. Facts: J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. manufactured and sold copper tubes. The Tariff Act of 1922 imposed a tax on imported copper, but exempted copper which had been manufactured within the United States. Hampton imported copper rods and manufactured them into copper tubes within the United States. The Commissioner of Customs assessed a tax on the imported copper rods, arguing that the exemption did not apply because the manufacturing process did not significantly transform the copper. Hampton filed a lawsuit to recover the assessed tax.
    IV. Issues: The main issue in this case was whether the manufacturing process, which converted imported copper rods into copper tubes within the United States, constituted a substantial transformation and qualified for the exemption from the import tax under the Tariff Act of 1922.
    V. Decisions and Action: The United States Supreme Court held that the manufacturing process did qualify as a substantial transformation, and therefore, the imported copper rods were exempt from the import tax. The court ordered the Commissioner of Customs to refund the assessed tax to J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co.
    VI. Rationale: The court relied on the principle that the determination of whether a substantial transformation had occurred should be based on the purpose and effect of the manufacturing process, rather than solely on the quantitative aspect of the transformation. The court considered the economic and commercial significance of the manufacturing process and concluded that the conversion of copper rods into copper tubes constituted a substantial transformation.
    VII. Concurring Opinion: There were no concurring opinions in this case.
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion: There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
    IX. Voting Coalition: The decision was unanimous.
    X. Summary and Legal Principle: In J.W. Hampton, Jr. And Co v United States, the Supreme Court held that the manufacturing process of converting imported copper rods into copper tubes within the United States constituted a substantial transformation, qualifying for the exemption from import tax under the Tariff Act of 1922. The court’s decision emphasized the purpose and effect of the manufacturing process, rather than merely focusing on quantitative aspects. This case established the principle that a substantial transformation can occur even if the physical change is not extensive, as long as the process has economic and commercial significance.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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?

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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:

  40. 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. Required fields are marked *

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