KIDD v. PEARSON

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
779
Petitioner 
Kidd
Respondent 
Pearson
Heard By 
Opinion 
Term:
Facts of the Case 

A state law made the manufacture of liquor in the state illegal, even when the liquor was for sale and consumption out-of-state.

Question 

Was the state law in conflict with the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce?

Conclusion 

There is no conflict and the state law is valid. The Court erected a distinction between manufacture and commerce. The state law regulated manufacturing only. The justices feared that a broad view of commerce that would embrace manufacturing would also embrace the power to regulate "every branch of human industry." The distinction proved untenable but it took nearly a half-century to erase its pernicious consequences.

Cite this Page
KIDD v. PEARSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 26 November 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1887/1887_779>.
KIDD v. PEARSON, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1887/1887_779 (last visited November 26, 2014).
"KIDD v. PEARSON," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed November 26, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1887/1887_779.