Stafford v. Wallace
Significance, Stockyards In The Stream Of Commerce, Taking On The Monopolies, Defining And Expanding The Concept
Stafford and Company, a firm engaged in the buying and selling of livestock
Henry C. Wallace, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
That the operation of stockyards did not constitute interstate commerce, and therefore Congress did not have authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James Montgomery Beck, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, John Hessin Clarke, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Joseph McKenna, Mahlon Pitney, William Howard Taft (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter
James Clark McReynolds (William Rufus Day did not participate)
Date of Decision
1 May 1922
Upheld the authority of Congress to enforce the act over stockyards, which the Court ruled were not "places of rest or a final destination," but rather "a throat through which the current of commerce flows."
- State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada - Significance, Supreme Court Redefines "separate But Equal"
- Inc. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros. - Significance, Intrastate And Interstate Interests Treated The Same, Future Restrictions On The States, Big Rig Road Hazards
- Stafford v. Wallace - Significance
- Stafford v. Wallace - Further Readings
- Stafford v. Wallace - Stockyards In The Stream Of Commerce
- Stafford v. Wallace - Taking On The Monopolies
- Stafford v. Wallace - Defining And Expanding The Concept
- Stafford v. Wallace - Impact
- Stafford v. Wallace - Related Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias