Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Co.

270 U.S. 402 (1926)

Quick Summary

The United States Supreme Court addressed whether Pennsylvania’s bedding regulation act infringed upon the Palmer Bros. Co.’s (plaintiff) constitutional rights. The plaintiff argued that the act’s ban on using shoddy violated their Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The issue revolved around whether this absolute ban was reasonable or arbitrary given that shoddy could be safely sterilized. The Supreme Court concluded that the ban was indeed arbitrary and not justified by health concerns, affirming the lower court’s decision in favor of Palmer Bros. Co.

Facts of the Case

In Pennsylvania, the Act of 1923 prohibited the use of shoddy in bedding manufacture, a material utilized by Palmer Bros. Co., a Connecticut-based bedding manufacturer, in its products. Weaver, tasked with enforcing the Act, threatened legal action against Palmer Bros. Co., leading to a lawsuit where Palmer Bros. Co. argued that the Act violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process and Equal Protection.

Despite significant business operations in Pennsylvania, including over half a million dollars in sales of comfortables filled with shoddy, Palmer Bros. Co. contended that shoddy could be effectively sterilized to eliminate health risks, a point not contested by the State.

The federal district court sided with Palmer Bros. Co., enjoining enforcement of the Act, prompting Weaver’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Palmer Bros. Co. filed suit in federal district court against Weaver to prevent the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s Act of 1923.
  2. The district court granted an injunction in favor of Palmer Bros. Co.
  3. Weaver appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether the prohibition of using shoddy in the manufacture of comfortables, as mandated by Pennsylvania’s Act of 1923, violates the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule of Law

Legislative determinations are given significant weight, but they must not transgress constitutional limits. The burden is on those challenging legislation to prove its invalidity.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court recognized that while legislative bodies have broad discretion in creating regulations for public health, such regulations must be reasonable and not arbitrary. The evidence showed that shoddy could be safely sterilized, a fact acknowledged by both parties and implied by the Act itself.

The Court found that there was no evidence that shoddy was inherently dangerous or that it had ever caused illness, and that any potential health risks could be mitigated through sterilization, which Palmer Bros. Co. was already practicing.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Act allowed for other materials to be used in bedding if they were sterilized and that this selective prohibition against shoddy was therefore unreasonable. The prohibition was deemed an arbitrary restriction on a legitimate business practice and thus in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the absolute prohibition of using shoddy in manufacturing comfortables was arbitrary and violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Holmes, joined by Justices Brandeis and Stone, dissented, arguing that if the legislature believed there to be a health risk associated with unsterilized shoddy, it could constitutionally act on that belief. He suggested that practical classifications in law are permissible when addressing issues on a large scale and that the law should not be overturned simply because it does not cover every potential instance of harm.

Key Takeaways

  1. The prohibition against using shoddy in comfortables when it can be sterilized and made safe is an arbitrary regulation violating Due Process.
  2. A state’s broad discretion in public health matters must still align with constitutional protections and cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary.
  3. The burden of proof to show that legislation is unconstitutional lies with those challenging it.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes an arbitrary state regulation and how does it conflict with due process?

An arbitrary state regulation is one that lacks a reasonable justification and is not based on sound evidence or rationale. It conflicts with due process because it can infringe upon individuals’ or entities’ rights without a legitimate government interest or compelling reason. Due process requires that laws do not unnecessarily restrict legal rights or operate under assumptions that are not evidentially supported.

  • For example: A state law prohibits the sale of all red cars claiming they are more prone to accidents, without any statistical evidence supporting such a claim. This would likely be deemed an arbitrary regulation as it has no rational basis and restricts the right to sell personal property.

How does the principle of equal protection apply when a law discriminates between different types of similar goods?

The principle of equal protection requires that laws treat similarly situated entities in a similar manner unless there is a sufficient justification for the differential treatment. When a law discriminates between similar goods without adequate justification, it violates this principle by failing to apply consistent standards.

  • For example: A tax exemption is given only to electric cars produced by manufacturers established post-2010, although pre-2010 manufacturers offer equivalent electric vehicles. This could be contested under equal protection principles as it unduly favors one group over another without just cause.

Under what circumstances can a state exercise its police powers to regulate business practices in the interest of public health?

A state can exercise its police powers to regulate business practices in the interest of public health when there is a real and substantial relation between the regulation and the public health objective, and when the means employed are not arbitrary or oppressive. The state must demonstrate that the regulation serves to prevent harm and is the least restrictive means to achieve the intended public health benefit.

  • For example: A state requires restaurants to maintain certain hygiene standards, like temperature control for foods, which directly correlates to preventing foodborne illnesses, thus serving a public health goal without being excessive.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Constitutional Law