Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972

Maryland v. Wirtz - Significance, Minimum Wage And Overtime, Interstate Commerce And Labor Peace, Disrupting The Fiscal Policy Of The States

court appellants standards amended

Appellants

The states of Maryland, Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming; and the Fort Worth [Texas] Independent School District

Appellee

W. Willard Wirtz, U.S. Secretary of Labor, et al.

Appellants' Claim

That the Court should enjoin [prevent] enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended in 1966, which required states to meet federal standards for paying minimum wage and overtime in their schools and hospitals.

Chief Lawyers for Appellants

Alan M. Wilner, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland; Charles Alan Wright

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Erwin N. Griswold, U.S. Solicitor General

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Abe Fortas, John Marshall Harlan II (writing for the Court), Earl Warren, Byron R. White (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)

Justices Dissenting

William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

10 June 1968

Decision

That the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended did indeed apply to state schools and hospitals, and that states should obey the amended provisions and pay minimum wage and overtime.

Related Cases

  • National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976).
  • Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985).

Further Readings

  • Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
  • DelMonte, Rosemarie E. "And the States Stand Alone."Creighton Law Review, Vol. 19, no. 1, fall 1986, pp. 105-131.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Significance, The Due Process Clause, The Rehabilitation Of Youthful Offenders, Courts Granting More Rights [next] [back] Malloy v. Hogan - Significance, Right To Remain Silent, Transactional Immunity

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or