Jump to content

Hill v. Wallace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magioladitis (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 30 July 2016 (Sources: clean up / fix section header naming (WP:ASL) using AWB (12061)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hill v. Wallace
Argued January 11, 1922
Decided May 15, 1922
Full case nameHill et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture et al.
Citations259 U.S. 44 (more)
42 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 822
Holding
The Futures Trading Act of 1921, approved August 24, 1921. 42 Stat. 187, c. 86, which attempted to institute Federal regulation of grain futures contract trading by imposing a prohibitive tax on futures contracts traded on any market other than those that met the requirements of the statute and were regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture was an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power of Congress.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinion
MajorityTaft, joined by Brandeis
Laws applied
US Constitution Article I, Sec. 8.

Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the legality of the Futures Trading Act of 1921. The law, approved August 24, 1921, 42 Stat. 187 187, c. 86 by the U.S. Congress attempted to institute Federal regulation of grain futures contract trading by imposing a prohibitive tax on futures contracts traded on any market other than those that met the statute's requirements and were regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The court found it was an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Congress responded to the Court's decision by passing the Grain Futures Act in September 1922 based on the Commerce Clause. The Grain Futures Act was held to be constitutional by the Court in Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen (1923)

See also

Sources