"5 Hammer v Dagenhart began in North Carolina where Roland Dagenhart worked at a textile mill. Due to the Keating-Owen Act, the mill refused to allow Dagenhart's 14-year-old son Reuben to work. Dagenhart filed the lawsuit that made its way and was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. Dagenhart contended that this law was not a regulation of commerce, that child labor laws were reserved to the states provided in the Tenth Amendment, and that the right to allow his children to work was guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment.6 .
In a narrow ruling of five to four, the Supreme Court agreed and over-turned the Keating-Owen Act declaring, "the manufacture of goods is not commerce." Dual federalism divides the functions of government between the state and federal government entities. The States did not delegate the authority of intrastate commerce in the Constitution to the federal government. "The power of the States to regulate their purely internal affairs by such laws as seem wise to the local authority is inherent, and has never been surrendered to the general government."7 Thereby, the power "to regulate the hours of labor of children in factories and mines within the states, is a purely state authority." Congress did not have "the constitutional power to impose uniform rules for the country."8 Hammer v. Dagenhart put this question before the Court: "Does the authority vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the states allow it to enact legislation targeting manufacturing practices?"9 Congress' authority to regulate commerce among the states does not allow it to enact legislation targeting manufacturing practices. The Keating-Owen Act does not regulate transportation among the states, but was intended to standardize child labor ages. After production, "the goods themselves are harmless" and do not change after the thirty day wait period.