Kidd v. Pearson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kidd v. Pearson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
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
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.


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[edit]

Is there a conflict between the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Decision of the Court[edit]

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[edit]


  1. ^ "Kidd v. Pearson - 128 U.S. 1 (1888)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 17 January 2014. 
  2. ^ "Kidd v. Pearson - 128 U.S. 1 (1888)". Retrieved 17 January 2014. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Fedora, H. Appleton (1940). "The Commerce Clause, the State's Police Power and Intoxicating Liquors". Kentucky Law Journal. 29: 66. 

External links[edit]