Kidd v. Pearson
Kidd v. Pearson | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argued April 4, 1888 Decided October 22, 1888 |
|||||
Full case name | J. S. Kidd v. I. E. Pearson | ||||
Citations | 128 U.S. 1 (more)
9 S. Ct. 6; 32 L. Ed. 346; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2193
|
||||
Prior history | Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa | ||||
Subsequent history | None | ||||
Holding | |||||
There is no conflict and the state law is valid. The Court erected a distinction between manufacture and commerce. The state law regulated manufacturing only. A broad view of commerce that embraces manufacturing would also embrace the power to regulate "every branch of human industry." | |||||
Court membership | |||||
|
|||||
Case opinions | |||||
Majority | Lamar, joined by Miller, Field, Bradley, Harlan, Matthews, Gray, Blatchford | ||||
Fuller took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol (in this case for sale out-of-state) was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Contents
Background
An Iowa state law made the manufacturing of liquor in Iowa illegal, even though the liquor was being sold out-of-state.
Question before the Supreme Court
Is there a conflict between the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Decision of the Court
The court ruled that there was not a conflict between Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and the state law. Therefore the law was valid.[1][2]
See also
References
Further reading
- Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
External links
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>