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|
|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."|
|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.
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
- Fedora, H. Appleton (1940). "The Commerce Clause, the State's Police Power and Intoxicating Liquors". Kentucky Law Journal 29: 66.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|