Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1928 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawNondelegationTariffsTaxing Powernondelegation doctrineintelligible principletariff powercustoms duties

Facts

J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Company imported barium dioxide into New York. The collector assessed duty at six cents per pound, two cents above the four-cent statutory rate, based on the President's proclamation issued under § 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922. Section 315 authorized the President, after investigation into differences in costs of production between the United States and the principal competing foreign country, to increase or decrease duties within a 50 percent limit to equalize those differences. The President's proclamation stated that, after a Tariff Commission investigation and hearing, he found Germany to be the principal competing country and determined that increasing the duty on barium dioxide from four cents to six cents per pound was necessary to equalize production-cost differences.

Issue

Whether § 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922 was unconstitutional either because it delegated legislative power over customs duties to the President or because it pursued protection of domestic industry rather than revenue alone.

Rule

Congress may not delegate purely legislative power, but it may authorize an executive officer or body to execute a legislative policy if Congress lays down an intelligible principle to which the authorized decisionmaker must conform. Congress may also impose customs duties for revenue even if it also seeks to encourage domestic industries through the tariff structure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Mineral Imports Adjustment Act. The statute sets a baseline duty on imported copper wire, then authorizes the President, after an investigation by the Federal Trade Analysis Board, to increase or decrease that duty by no more than 40% whenever necessary to equalize the difference between domestic and foreign production costs for like goods. An importer in Baltimore challenges a presidential proclamation raising the duty by 15%.

Is the importer's nondelegation challenge most likely to succeed?

Explanation. The challenge should fail. The governing rule is that Congress may not transfer purely legislative power, but it may authorize executive action when it lays down an intelligible principle. Here Congress specified the policy and rule—equalizing production-cost differences—and limited the President to applying that standard within a 40% cap after investigation. That is execution of the law, not lawmaking. (Derived from J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928).)