Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.

Supreme Court of United States
270 U.S. 402 (1926)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state law that absolutely prohibits the use of a legitimate and useful material in manufacturing, which can be rendered harmless through reasonable regulation like sterilization, is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of police power that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

Palmer Bros. Co. is a Connecticut corporation that manufactures and sells comfortables, including in Pennsylvania.
A significant portion of Palmer Bros. Co.'s business involves making comfortables filled with 'shoddy,' a material made from new or secondhand fabric clippings.
Shoddy is a widely used material in other industries for products like blankets, clothing, and underwear.
The evidence established, and the parties conceded, that any potential health dangers from shoddy can be completely eliminated by sterilization at a low cost.
The Pennsylvania law in question banned all shoddy but permitted the use of other secondhand materials, such as feathers, provided they were sterilized.
There was no evidence presented to show that the use of shoddy in comfortables had ever caused sickness or disease.

Procedural Posture:

Palmer Bros. Co. filed suit against Weaver, a Pennsylvania official, in the federal District Court seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the state's bedding act.
The District Court initially denied Palmer Bros. Co.'s application for a temporary injunction, a decision that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Following a full trial on the merits, the District Court found that the act's absolute prohibition of shoddy violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court entered a decree permanently restraining the enforcement of the prohibition against shoddy.
Weaver, the state official and appellant, appealed the District Court's final decree directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a Pennsylvania statute that absolutely prohibits the use of 'shoddy' in the manufacture of comfortables, even when the shoddy is new or can be sterilized, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Butler

Yes. A state law that absolutely prohibits the use of a useful and legitimate material like shoddy, when any potential danger can be eliminated by reasonable regulation such as sterilization, is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of police power that violates the Due Process Clause. The prohibition cannot be sustained as a health measure because sterilization, a method endorsed by the Act for other materials, undisputedly eliminates all health risks from shoddy. Nor can the ban be justified as a measure to prevent deception, as the Act's existing inspection and tagging requirements are adequate means to inform consumers. Because the business is legitimate and the material can be made safe, the absolute prohibition is not reasonably related to any public interest and is purely arbitrary.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Holmes

No. The Pennsylvania law does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court should defer to the legislative judgment that the use of unsterilized shoddy is a significant public health risk. If the legislature believed that inspection and tagging were inadequate remedies and that it is impracticable to distinguish between sterilized and unsterilized shoddy once inside a comfortable, it could constitutionally forbid all use of shoddy in bedding to prevent the spread of disease. A legislative classification is not arbitrary merely because it attacks an evil where it is most felt rather than in every instance. The majority presses the Fourteenth Amendment too far by substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature.

Analysis:

This case is a key example of Lochner-era substantive due process, where the Court invalidated economic regulations it deemed unreasonable or arbitrary. The decision establishes that a state's police power is not absolute and must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. By finding that a less restrictive alternative (sterilization) could achieve the state's public health goals, the Court limited the legislature's ability to enact outright prohibitions on useful commercial products. This ruling emphasizes that a law's means must be proportional to its ends, setting a precedent against overly burdensome regulations on legitimate businesses under the guise of public protection.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. (1926)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"