Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Hammer v. United States

• 1925 • 271 U.S. 620 • Taft Court
In the 1925 case Hammer v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the Mann Act, which made it illegal to transport women across state lines for "immoral purposes." The defendant, Dr. Andrew Hammer, had taken his secretary from Washington D.C. to Virginia and then Maryland where they engaged in sexual relations while he was still married to another woman. He argued that their relationship was consensual and therefore not "immoral" as defined by the act. However, Justice...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taft Court
Term: 1925
Docket: 317
271 U.S. 620
46 S. Ct. 603
70 L. Ed. 1118
1926 U.S. LEXIS 956
Argued: May 05, 1926

Hammer v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1925 case Hammer v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the Mann Act, which made it illegal to transport women across state lines for "immoral purposes." The defendant, Dr. Andrew Hammer, had taken his secretary from Washington D.C. to Virginia and then Maryland where they engaged in sexual relations while he was still married to another woman. He argued that their relationship was consensual and therefore not "immoral" as defined by the act. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected this argument stating that adultery is widely regarded as immoral regardless of consent or lack thereof between parties involved in adulterous relationships. Therefore Dr.Hammer's actions were indeed covered by provisions of Mann Act leading to upholding his conviction.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Hammer v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds in prosecuting a man under child labor laws. The majority ruled that Benjamin Hammer's interstate sale of items produced with child labor constituted illegal trafficking and was therefore within Congress' power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. However, Holmes contended this interpretation stretched the clause too far and intruded on states' rights to regulate their own internal affairs - including labor conditions. He believed it was not Congress’ role to dictate morality or establish standards of proper conduct but rather each state’s responsibility to determine such matters according to their individual circumstances and values. Thus, he viewed this case as an example of federal overreach into areas traditionally governed by state law.

Opinion written by Justice PButler
Decided: Jun 07, 1926
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms