J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An importer challenged a tariff increase enacted by the President. The Supreme Court upheld the law authorizing the action, ruling that Congress can delegate authority to the executive branch so long as it provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive’s discretion.
Legal Significance: This case established the “intelligible principle” doctrine, a foundational concept in administrative and constitutional law that permits Congress to delegate quasi-legislative authority to the executive branch, provided it sets a clear standard to guide the executive’s actions.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. imported barium dioxide and was assessed a customs duty of six cents per pound. This rate was two cents higher than the rate specified in the Tariff Act of 1922. The increase was implemented via a proclamation by President Coolidge, acting under the authority of § 315 of the Act, known as the “flexible tariff” provision. This provision authorized the President, after an investigation by the U.S. Tariff Commission, to increase or decrease duties by up to 50%. The stated goal was to “equalize the…differences in costs of production” between goods made in the United States and those from the “principal competing country.” Hampton challenged the increased tariff, arguing that § 315 was unconstitutional on two grounds: first, that it was an impermissible delegation of Congress’s legislative power to tax to the President in violation of the separation of powers; and second, that Congress’s power to levy duties is limited to raising revenue and cannot be used for the protectionist purpose of equalizing competition.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a statute authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates within prescribed limits, in order to effectuate a congressional policy of equalizing production costs, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
No. The Court held that the authority granted to the President under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui off
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a statute authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates within prescribed limits, in order to effectuate a congressional policy of equalizing production costs, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
Conclusion
This decision provides the constitutional foundation for the modern administrative state by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
Legal Rule
If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Legal Analysis
Chief Justice Taft, writing for a unanimous Court, established the "intelligible principle" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Upheld the “flexible tariff” provision allowing the President to adjust duties