Is it Time to Revisit the Child Labor Amendment?

By: Tess O’Donoghue
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

Since 2021, even as violations of child labor law increased, several states have significantly weakened protections for child workers. These rollbacks, coupled with the deregulatory animus of the Trump administration, have prompted many concerned with the welfare of child workers to revisit the Child Labor Amendment. First proposed in 1924, the Child Labor Amendment is a pending constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to “limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age,” thus expanding the very narrow protections afforded to working children by federal law.

This article will proceed in three main parts. Firstly, it will situate recent calls for child labor protections within the current legal landscape surrounding child labor and the history of the movement for the Child Labor Amendment. Secondly, it will consider whether enacting the Child Labor Amendment would be legally feasible given the Supreme Court’s ruling in Coleman v. Miller and the recent finalization of the 27th Amendment. Thirdly, the paper will turn to discuss the Amendment’s limitations and how it compares to and interacts with other policy proposals. Indeed, enshrining the rights of child workers within the Constitution could be the first step in a chain of long-lasting changes that respond to the root causes of child labor abuses and uphold the dignity of all children.

II. ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND

i. The Current Legal Landscape

There is no mention of child labor in the Constitution; the only federal provisions that govern child labor are found within the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, which established cornerstone aspects of labor and employment law such as minimum wage and overtime [1]. The FLSA does not regulate all employers; it only covers firms that produce, handle, or sell goods for interstate commerce and “whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000;” construction and laundry companies that reach the same threshold of sales; and hospitals and educational institutions [2]. The Act prohibits certain “hazardous occupations” and limits the hours of fourteen- and fifteen-year-old children. It allows children of any age to work for a business owned by their parents, as long as it is not in mining or manufacturing. The Wage and Hour Division, established by the FLSA, investigates wages, hours, and conditions, punishing violators with civil money penalties. Multiple violations can result in criminal prosecution [3].

The federal youth employment provisions of the FLSA are deficient in three main ways: they are limited in scope, set lower standards for agriculture, and are easily evaded. Firstly, they do not mention breaks, meal periods, or fringe benefits or regulate discrimination, harassment, and abuse [4]. Many child laborers are migrants who have left the supervision of their immigration sponsors to work in dangerous occupations. These children do not have reliable healthcare or meals, and the absence of a guardian leaves them particularly vulnerable to abuse. Secondly, when the Act was expanded to cover agricultural occupations in 1974, it set much lower standards for agricultural employers [5]. For example, rules prohibiting agricultural tasks do not apply to children who work for their parents, and there are no limits on the number of non-school hours children as young as twelve may work. Thirdly, prohibitions on dangerous activities are difficult for children to understand and easy for employers to evade [6]. While the Act describes such activities as “hazardous occupations,” they are not “occupations” in the conventional sense, but rather specific tasks such as cleaning power-driven meat processing machines. Children in the meat-packing industry, particularly migrant children, who are asked to complete such tasks may not understand the vocabulary used in the Act, and they may not recognize that their employers are breaking the law by asking them to complete particular tasks. This limits workers’ ability to assert their rights and exacerbates the power imbalance between employers and working minors, resulting in tragic consequences. For instance, on July 14, 2023, sixteen-year-old Duvan Thomas Perez was killed cleaning a machine at a poultry processing plant. It was illegal for him to clean the machine, but not to work at the plant [7]. Similarly, sixteen-year-old Michael Schuls was killed two weeks earlier while fixing a machine at a logging company [8]. These tragic accidents would not have occurred if the FLSA had stronger protections for minors.

State law has historically addressed some of the shortcomings of the FLSA, but major labor shortages have prompted states to roll back protections in recent years. For instance, under Arkansas’ Youth Hiring Act of 2023, employers are no longer required to document proof of age, the nature of the job, or parental consent for employees under 16 [9]. Also in 2023, North Dakota passed SB 20170 to allow children age 16 and older who are enrolled in apprenticeship programs to work in hazardous conditions [10]. Perhaps most notable is Iowa’s SF 542, which relieves employers in work-based learning programs of any liability for injury, illness, or death as a result of the work [11]. It also vastly expands the duration and nature of the tasks children may complete, reducing the state’s standards beneath the FLSA’s low bar [12]. The law permits fourteen- and fifteen-year-old children to work up to six hours on a school day, as well as in freezers and meat coolers, and allows migratory laborers ages twelve and older to work during school hours [13]. Although Iowan employers will remain subject to the stricter standard set by the FLSA [14], without adequate funding or staff for federal enforcement [15], many violations will go undetected.

The Department of Labor measures the severity of child labor by the total number of children employed in connection with violations of child labor law each year. In fiscal year 2024, the Department recorded that nearly four times as many children were employed in cases of child labor than in FY 2015 [16]. These numbers are likely to climb in the coming years due to the declining labor force participation rate, which will drop by two percent before 2032, causing persistent labor shortages across industries and encouraging states to loosen their restrictions on child labor even more [17]. As child labor has become more prevalent, federal law has not expanded to regulate it, resulting in dire consequences for children’s health and safety. In fact, “the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimates that 160,000 American children suffer occupational injuries every year,” 54,800 of which are serious enough to warrant emergency room treatment [18]. Violations of child labor law have also become more common as migration by unaccompanied minors has increased [19]. For the hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children in the U.S., the harms of weak protections are compounded by their lack of guardianship and citizenship [20]. In this way, insufficient federal protections and regressive state initiatives are leaving child workers increasingly exposed to abuse and danger.

ii. The History of the Child Labor Amendment

In the early twentieth century, child labor was pervasive across the United States, from Southern textile mills to Northern factories, prompting a movement to protect child workers. The movement was galvanized by the Supreme Court’s 1918 ruling in Hammer v. Dagenhart striking down the KeatingOwen Act, a law that set labor standards for the production of goods for interstate commerce. Hammer concerned the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce… among the several states.” Courts have historically demonstrated “an unequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause,” applying it to cases involving intrastate commerce and labormanagement disputes. [21] However, the Hammer Court reasoned that because the clause itself does not define “commerce,” it should pertain strictly to the act of commerce and not to production. The majority opinion also stated that the Tenth Amendment grants to the states and the people "the powers not expressly delegated to the national government.” This was a misquote: in reality, “the framers purposely left the word expressly out of the amendment because they believed they could not possibly specify every power that might be needed in the future to run the government.” [22] Therefore, the Court’s decision grossly understated the regulatory authority given to the federal government by the Constitution.

Despite the majority’s error, the ruling forced activists to seek new avenues for change. Four constitutional amendments had been enacted within the past decade, so reformers were reasonably optimistic that an amendment regarding child labor could be successful. The Amendment was proposed and quickly passed by the House and Senate in 1924. [23] Its text was open-ended so as to withstand attack in court:

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress. [24]

In the following thirteen years, the Child Labor Amendment was ratified by 28 of the 36 states needed for enactment. Despite this support from state legislators, the movement lost momentum at the national level in the mid-1920s amid intense opposition from business interests and proponents of states’ and parents’ rights. The American Bar Association published a resolution in 1933 arguing that state legislatures should govern child labor, and the presidents of Columbia and Harvard Universities suggested that such an amendment, despite its deliberately open-ended language, would infringe on family privacy by empowering federal investigators to inspect homes, schools, and churches. [25]

During the Great Depression, unions advocated for the Child Labor Amendment on behalf of their unemployed members, who were losing job opportunities to underpaid and overworked children. [26] The movement once again lost traction with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 and the Supreme Court’s approval of the Act in 1940. In United States v. Darby, the Court overturned Hammer, reasoning that the Commerce Clause empowered Congress to regulate both the commerce and the production of goods sold in interstate commerce. The Court asserted that without the involvement of Congress, states would be incentivized to lower their labor standards in order to outcompete neighboring states. [27] This decision did not, however, give Congress any regulatory authority over the production of goods sold within state lines. Although the FLSA has since been amended to cover some service workers, the lack of a constitutional provision or judicial precedent delegating a comprehensive authority to regulate child labor to Congress has reinforced states’ power and weakened attempts to pass federal protections.

It is important to note that since the movement for stronger child labor standards emerged in the 1870s, it has been characterized by racism and exclusion. In the 1900s, the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC) depicted child labor as “white child slavery” and recruited support from segregationists who feared that white children who worked instead of attending school would lose their dominant position in society. [28] Albert Beveridge, one of the most vocal imperialists in the U.S. Senate, believed the Child Labor Amendment was necessary to move Southern white children from the field to the classroom, ensuring that white Americans would “keep superior” over Black Americans. [29] In 1924,the very year the Child Labor Amendment was proposed, the NCLC surveyed agricultural families in Colorado and found that white families so strongly resented Mexican families that they did not want Mexican children to attend the same schools. As a result, the Committee concluded that “there cannot be a sympathetic approach to the question of child labor until there is a better understanding between the two groups of people.” [30] In fact, the FLSA’s initial exclusions of farmworkers and domestic workers were designed to win the votes of legislators who refused to support Blacks and Mexican Americans. These groups were disproportionately represented in agriculture and domestic service; in the 1930s, 53 percent of Black men and 40 percent of Mexican men worked in agriculture, and 62 percent of Black women and 44 percent of Mexican women worked in domestic service . [31] This history should serve as a reminder to heed the words of the Colorado Committee and chart a more inclusive path to stronger child labor laws. Such a path requires reformers to consider the unique vulnerability of migrant children, many of whom work long hours in treacherous conditions each day. [32]

III. IS ENACTING THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT FEASIBLE?

As numerous states roll back labor protections for minors, some advocates and legislators are reviving the call for a Child Labor Amendment. New Hampshire’s House of Representatives adopted a unicameral resolution reaffirming its ratification in 2024, and the Minnesota legislature introduced a resolution doing the same in 2023. [33] Six of the ten states that have not ratified it—Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, and Rhode Island—have in recent years introduced resolutions to do so. [34] In Connecticut, for example, the House of Representatives introduced Joint Resolution 48 ratifying the Child Labor Amendment in January 2025. As of April 2025, the Committee on Government Administration and Elections has recently reported favorably on the bill, and it has been placed on the House Calendar. [35] Even though Connecticut has a tradition of strong labor laws—it passed the first child labor legislation in the nation and classifies child labor violations as felonies—many representatives believe the amendment is necessary to prevent other states from eliminating their protections. [36] They recognize that such an amendment would not invalidate the protections passed by Connecticut or other states unless they interfere with federal law. [37]

To many scholars, however, the constitutionality of enacting a one hundred-year-old amendment remains uncertain. Article V of the Constitution states that a proposed amendment must be passed by twothirds of the U.S. House of Representatives and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. [38] It does not set a timeline for ratification nor determine whether a state can vote again to ratify or reject an amendment, and both matters have been repeatedly debated by scholars and politicians. Because the purpose of constitutional amendments is to guide the Supreme Court and check its power, the Court has refrained from providing a clear answer to these questions. [39]

i. Coleman vs. Miller

The Child Labor Amendment brought questions regarding the ratification process to the Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller. In Kansas, the legislature voted to reject the Child Labor Amendment in 1925, but twelve years later, state senators introduced a new resolution to ratify the amendment. After it passed by the tie-breaking vote of the Lieutenant Governor, legislators who had voted against the resolution filed a writ of mandamus requesting that the ratification be overturned. They presented three arguments: (1) the legislature could not hold a new vote on an amendment that had been rejected, (2) too much time had lapsed since the amendment was first passed, and (3) the Lieutenant Governor did not have the authority to cast the deciding vote. This section will focus on the first two arguments. [40]

The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that “ratification of proposed amendments… is a federal power created by the federal Constitution that is then given to the states to implement.” Because the power does not lie within state law, the Court said, a state cannot deny its legislators the opportunity to ratify an amendment simply because it has been rejected in the past, and it cannot invalidate a previous ratification by rejecting it later on. Once a state ratifies an amendment, it has fully exercised the power granted to it by Congress, and it can no longer affect the amendment’s trajectory by rejecting it. [41]

When the legislators appealed this decision, the Supreme Court decided that the political branches should address all questions posed by the petitioners. They cited the finalization of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified by three states that had originally rejected it, and rejected by two states that had previously ratified it. In this instance, Congress adopted a resolution directing the Secretary of State to clarify which states had ratified the amendment, and the Secretary included all five states in his count. Then, Congress instructed the Secretary to publish the Fourteenth Amendment as part of the Constitution. [42] However, the 14th Amendment was ratified under unique circumstances: new military governments had been established by an Act of Congress in all three states before they revoted on the amendment. [43] Therefore, this instance does not establish a clear precedent for allowing rejection postratification. Rather, the Court highlighted this historical moment to show that the executive and legislative branches—not the judicial branch—can democratically resolve ambiguities surrounding the amendment process. [44]

In response to the second question, the Supreme Court asserted that no court could impose a deadline for ratification if one was not specified by Congress. Instead, when the ratification process is completed years after an amendment was first proposed, Congress must determine whether or not it should be finalized based on changes in “political, social and economic” conditions. If Congress decides the amendment is “no longer responsive to the conception which inspired it,” it can declare the amendment invalid. However, if national circumstances have “intensif[ied] the feeling of need and the appropriateness of the proposed remedial action,” Congress may decide that the time that had lapsed since its proposal was “reasonable.” Therefore, according to the decision in Coleman, the Child Labor Amendment is still officially pending. [45] If the additional ten states ratify it, it will be up to Congress to approve enactment.

ii. The Case of the 27th Amendment

The precedent set by Coleman was essential to the enactment of the 27th Amendment in 1992. In this way, the Supreme Court’s refusal to participate in the debate over the ratification deadline allowed the amendment to become law 203 years after it was first proposed. The 27th Amendment prevents representatives from increasing their own pay, stating that a law adjusting representatives’ compensation cannot go into effect until after the next election season. [46]

While the passage of the 27th Amendment proves that it is possible to finalize a centuries-old proposal, the circumstances under which the amendment was enacted represent a sui generis situation that is “very unlikely ever to rise again.” [47] With the exception of the 27th Amendment, each constitutional amendment was ratified and enacted no more than four years after it was first proposed. [48] This was largely because the 27th Amendment had widespread support that allowed it to overcome the legal and political challenges it faced. Some scholars believe that the 27th Amendment does not meet the conditions of Article V because there was no moment when both Congress and the states demonstrated their approval of it. These scholars emphasize the fact that the Congress that passed the amendment 203 years prior did not necessarily represent the sentiment of today’s elected representatives. While this concern could be addressed by a strictly textualist interpretation of Article V, Congress went a step further, holding a new vote in which only three Congresspeople voted against enactment. [49] Finally, the 27th Amendment is also unique in its substance: instead of adopting new powers, representatives relinquished the power to advance their financial interests by restricting adjustments to the compensation scheme.

The public and politicians generally viewed this legislation as legitimate because it was bipartisan, clearly defined, and had little to no direct effect on states, businesses, or citizens. If states ratified a more controversial amendment that expanded Congress’ power, such as the Child Labor Amendment, it would likely face more intense scrutiny without the express approval of Congress.

IV. THE POTENTIAL OF THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT TODAY

i. Prominent Proposals for Addressing Child Labor

Many legislators and advocates believe that the best way to prevent harmful child labor practices is to increase funding for the Department of Labor to employ monitors and investigators [50]. In March 2023, 60 Congresspeople signed a letter that urged Congress to fund the Department of Labor’s efforts “to investigate and hold accountable employers that are illegally exploiting child workers” and, a year later, Biden requested an additional $2 billion for the Department of Labor to enact stronger labor protections, particularly for children. [51] Indeed, violations are often undetected and penalties are minimal, which reduces employers’ incentive to comply with the FLSA. [52]

However, enforcing the Federal Labor Standards Act through the Department of Labor is not a sufficient long-term strategy for protecting children from dangerous and damaging employment. Firstly, while greater enforcement may deter some violations, as long as penalties remain low, focusing only on enforcement is a reactive strategy. [53] As the labor force participation rate continues to fall, proactive strategies are needed to prevent violations. [54] Secondly, a 2023 investigation by the New York Times revealed that when federal investigators catch an employer in violation of child labor laws, the employer fires underage workers to correct the violation but then rehires them after the investigators have moved on. If the children are not rehired, they find jobs in the shadow economy, which is often even more dangerous. In addition, undocumented workers often fear their employer will retaliate if they report unsafe conditions, so federal investigations and enforcement efforts cannot reach many children in need. [55]

Additionally, as the priorities of the Department of Labor shift from administration to administration, enforcement is inconsistent. Historically, conservative administrations have reallocated department funding away from enforcement; for example, the administration of George W. Bush cut funding for the Wage and Hour Division, which regulates labor law violations, and increased funding for the Office of Labor Management Standards, which restricts union activity. His budget proposal included almost 100 times as much money to regulate a single union than to regulate a single employer. [56] The Trump administration will likely follow in President Bush’s footsteps. Project 2025, which was shaped by at least 140 people who worked in President Trump’s first administration, directs the Department of Labor to “amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent” and allow minors to pursue “inherently dangerous” jobs. [57]

Regardless of the party in office, federal agencies will continue to lose their regulatory authority under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), which revoked deference to agencies’ interpretation of statutes. Loper Bright could be used to challenge the Field Assistance Bulletins the Department of Labor distributes to its officials of the Wage and Hour Division to enforce its policies. [58] In fact, shortly after the Court issued its decision, Senator Bill Cassidy wrote a letter to the Department of Labor calling on the department to “faithfully implement both the letter and spirit of this decision” by reevaluating—and potentially rolling back—rules and regulations that protect workers. [59] Consequently, a sustainable strategy for reducing harmful child-labor must extend beyond the executive branch.

ii. Recognizing Child Labor in the Constitution

How the law treats the most vulnerable in society—children and the undocumented—is a reflection of who we are as a nation, and efforts to protect children from dangerous and damaging employment shouldn’t rely on a single executive agency or vary from administration to administration. Therefore, the legislative and judicial branches need greater agency to protect child workers. Enacting the Child Labor Amendment empowering Congress to limit and regulate labor by minors would encourage legal challenges to state laws such as Iowa’s SF 542 and discourage other states from rolling back protections. Furthermore, the broad language of the proposed amendment would withstand the test of time, allowing Congress to make decisions based on economic shifts, such as global supply chain conditions, and demographic shifts, such as immigration waves.

The Child Labor Amendment would likely bolster support for existing bills in Congress. The statutory maximum for imposing a civil money penalty for a violation that does not cause death or serious injury is only $15,138, which fails to deter many of the major corporations that commit such violations. [60] Penalties for violations are currently too low to deter many employers. To address this, the Justice for Exploited Children Act of 2023 would significantly increase maximum penalties for violations of child labor laws, and the Combating Child Labor Act would “increase criminal and civil penalties [and] require the Secretary of Labor to annually report to Congress on child labor violations.” [61] In addition, because employers are not liable for violations by subcontractors, a large company can simply hire a new subcontractor without suffering any damage to its own reputation as the new subcontractor perpetuates the violation or introduces other harmful practices. [62] Congress could correct this by passing the Children Harmed in Life-threatening or Dangerous (CHILD) Labor Act, which was introduced in the House in October 2023. The bill extends FLSA policies to hold contractors and subcontractors accountable, increases penalties on violators,” and requires goods that were produced with child labor to be labelled as such.

The CHILD Labor Act would also empower “children who have been seriously injured to sue their employers,” effectively granting children a private right of action. [63] While adult workers are able to sue their employers for labor violations in many states, the Department of Labor is the only party that can sue a company to enforce child labor protections. Any penalty fees collected are sent to the Treasury Department, so children receive no compensation when their rights are violated. Instead, they simply lose their jobs and in many cases have no choice but to find new, more dangerous employment. [64] Consequently, many scholars have called on Congress to “ensure that plaintiffs may seek both monetary damages (including liquidated and punitive damages) and equitable relief.” [65]

In addition to these bills, Congress could introduce measures specifically to protect migrant children. Employment and labor law scholar Shefali Milczarek-Desai calls for mandatory workers’ rights education for all migrant child laborers who may be unaware of or unable to understand safety regulations. Such education could also help children access legal representation through workers’ compensation programs. He also recommends the expansion of the labor trafficking visa or work-based deferred action program to support family reunification so families are less reliant on their children’s labor and better able to protect them. A third long-term suggestion would be to amend immigration laws to grant children access to welfare benefits, perhaps by categorizing them with refugees and asylum seekers. [66] Overall, the Child Labor Amendment could raise the status quo for what the public has come to expect from legislators with regard to child labor.

The Child Labor Amendment would weaken opposition to lifesaving legislation and bolster legal challenges brought by victims of child labor violations. By spreading the responsibility to combat dangerous child labor between all three branches of the federal government, the Amendment ensures that victims of child labor have recourse now and in the future. Its passage would demonstrate to employers and state legislators that protecting the dignity and safety of children is a federal priority, regardless of changes in the labor market.

iii. Addressing Opposition to the Child Labor Amendment

Although the proposed Child Labor Amendment has great potential to protect children, it brings with it legal and practical concerns. Opponents believe that the amendment infringes upon states’ rights and fear Congress would abuse its power, prohibiting work by all minors. [67] However, the rising labor shortage, the weakness of organized labor, and the strength of the business lobby would likely prevent Congress from passing certain moderate proposals, let alone radical prohibitions. In addition, some argue that safer child labor laws would encourage parents to send their children to migrate illegally. On the other hand, tighter child labor laws would block children from many industries and roles, which would likely discourage potential migrants from seeking work here.

V. CONCLUSION

As state leaders roll back protections, Congress must fill the gap in federal legislation to uphold the dignity of child workers. Reviving the Child Labor Amendment would empower Congress to pass essential legislation instead of leaving thousands of children at the whims of the executive branch. On March 26, 2025, only days before the publication of this article, the Department of Labor cancelled all existing grants to its Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), effectively cutting $500 million used to enforce labor standards and combat child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking in more than 40 countries.68 Although attempts to finalize a century-old amendment will likely face legal challenges, the precedent set by Coleman v. Miller and the finalization of the 27th Amendment suggest that doing so is a feasible goal. Indeed, rectifying our Constitution to reflect our nation’s vital interest in protecting children from dangerous and damaging employment would lay the groundwork for practical, sustainable reforms children and our country desperately need.

Endnotes

[1] How to Build a Nation in 15 Weeks, “The Child Labor Amendment,” Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Podcasts, July 26, 2022, https://pbwtpodcasts.libsyn.com/the-child-labor-amendment.

[2] U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Child Labor Provisions for Nonagricultural Occupations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Child Labor Bulletin 101, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/childlabor101.pdf.

[3] U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Child Labor Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Nonagricultural Occupations, Fact Sheet 43, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/43-child-labor-nonagriculture#:~:text=Under%2014%20%2D%20Children%20under%2014,to%20the%20consumer%20and%20actin g).

[4] Fact Sheet 43, U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Child Labor Provisions.

[5] U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Overview of Youth Employment (Child Labor) Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Agricultural Occupations, Fact Sheet 40, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/40-child-laborfarms#:~:text=The%20Fair%20Labor%20Standards%20Act%20of%201938%20(FLSA)%20as%20amended,for%2 0youth%20employment%20in%20agriculture (accessed April 3, 2025).

[6] Shelly Anand and Audrey Moor, “Recent Child Labor Violations Highlight Need for Critical Labor Reforms,” American Immigration Lawyers Association, August 4, 2023, https://www.aila.org/blog/recent-child-laborviolations-highlight-need-for-critical-labor-reforms.

[7] Chang Che, “Death of 16-Year-Old at Mississippi Poultry Plant Prompts Federal Investigation,” The New York Times, July 19, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/us/mississippi-poultry-plant-death.html.

[8] Nina Golgowski, “Third Teen Worker Killed In Industrial Accident As States Try To Loosen Child Labor Laws,” HuffPost News, July 20, 2023, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/teen-poultry-factory-child-workerdeaths_n_64b7ecbce4b0ad7b75f67af7.

[9] Catherine Barbieri, “Conflicting Trends in Child Labor Laws Send Mixed Messages to Employers,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 26, 2023, https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/conflicting-trends-in-child-labor-lawssend-mixed-messages-to-employers.

[10] Samantha Capaldo, “Recent Federal and State Legislation to Amend Child Labor Laws,” The National Agricultural Law Center, December 14, 2024, https://nationalaglawcenter.org/recent-federal-and-state-legislationto-amend-child-labor-laws/.

[11] Iowa Senate File 542 (2023), p. 12, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF%20542.

[12] Capaldo, “Recent Federal and State Legislation.”

[13] Iowa Senate File 542 (2023), pp. 6, 4, 1.

[14] Fact Sheet 43, U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Child Labor Provisions.

[15] Jessica K. Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done to Eliminate Oppressive Child Labor,” American Constitution Society, May 10, 2023, https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/there-is-more-work-to-be-done-toeliminate-oppressive-child-labor/.

[16] “Impact in Fiscal Year 2024: Child Labor,” U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/data/charts/child-labor.

[17] Roberta Matuson, “The Forever Labor Shortage,” Forbes, September 13, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertamatuson/2023/09/13/the-forever-labor-shortage/.

[18] Fact Sheet 43, U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Child Labor Provisions.

[19] Shefali Milczarek-Desai, “(Hidden) in Plain Sight: Migrant Labor and the New Economy of Exploitation,” Arkansas Law Review 77, no. 345 (February 2024): 375.

[20] Tonya Mosley, “Amid a State Labor Crisis, U.S. State Governments Are Loosening Regulations,” NPR, May 4, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173697113/immigrant-child-labor-crisis.

[21] “Commerce Clause,” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, last reviewed July 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.

[22] “Hammer v. Dagenhart,” Oyez, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/247us251.

[23] Betsy Wood, “The Forgotten History of the Child Labor Amendment,” Time: Made by History, May 13, 2024, https://time.com/6970389/child-labor-amendment-forgotten/.

[24] Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done.”

[25] “The Child Labor Amendment, 1924–1934,” CQ Researcher, March 3, 1934, https://doi.org/10.4135/cqresrre1934030300.

[26] “A Needed Amendment,” The Nation, Vol. 138, No. 3576, January 1934, p. 60, https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/a-needed-amendment-to-restrict-childlabor/.

[27] “United States v. Darby,” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, last reviewed January 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._darby.

[28] Betsy Wood, Upon the Altar of Work: Child Labor and the Rise of a New American Sectionalism (University of Illinois Press, 2020), 51, Ebook Central.

[29] Wood, Upon the Altar of Work, 73, 75.

[30] Bob Silbernagel, “Child Labor and Migrant Living Conditions Were a Major Concern 100 Years Ago,” The Daily Sentinel, June 9, 2024, https://www.gjsentinel.com/lifestyle/child-labor-and-migrant-living-conditions-were-amajor-concern-100-years-ago/article_1b989a8c-24dd-11ef-b680-6f86cc656b3e.html.

[31] Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (Vintage Books, 1971), 21, 40.

[32] Milczarek-Desai, “(Hidden) in Plain Sight,” 352.

[33] New Hampshire House Resolution 24 (2024), https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HR24/id/2868556. Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done.”

[34] Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done.” “Child Labor Amendment,” Wikipedia, last edited December 17, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Amendment.

[35] “H.J. No. 48.” Connecticut General Assembly Website, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HJ00048&which_year=2025.

[36] “Child Labor,” Connecticut’s Official State Website, 2025, https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Publications/Labor/ChildLabor. Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/.

[37] Hudson Kamphausen, “House Votes Yes on Federal Child Labor Amendment, Waits for Senate,” CTNewsJunkie, May 1, 2024, https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/05/01/house-votes-yes-on-federal-child-labor-amendment-waits-for-senate/.

[38] U.S. Constitution, art. V.

[39] Steven G. Calabresi and Zephyr Teachout, “The Twenty-Seventh Amendment,” National Constitution Center, accessed April 3, 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendmentxxvii/interpretations/165.

[40] Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13916201793014079286.

[41] How to Build a Nation, at 30:35–34:57.

[42] Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433.

[43] An Act to Provide for the More Efficient Government of the Rebel States, 153-39, No. -39, 2 Stat. 428 (1867), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-14/pdf/STATUTE-14-Pg428-2.pdf#page=1.

[44] Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433.

[45] Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done.”

[46] U.S. Constitution, amend. XVII.

[47] Calabresi and Teachout, “The 27th Amendment.”

[48] “Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” National Archives Foundation, accessed April 4, 2025, https://archivesfoundation.org/amendments-u-s-constitution/.

[49] Calabresi and Teachout, “The 27th Amendment.”

[50] Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done.”

[51] Jon King, “Kildee Leads Congressional Letter Demanding Strong Enforcement of Child Labor Laws,” States Newsroom, March 13, 2023, https://michiganadvance.com/briefs/kildee-leads-congressional-letter-demandingstrong-enforcement-of-child-labor-laws/. Congresswoman Hillary Scholten, “Rep. Scholten Co-leads Letter Calling on Congress to Combat Child Labor,” news release, September 14, 2023, https://scholten.house.gov/media/pressreleases/rep-scholten-co-leads-letter-calling-congress-combat-child-labor. Max Kutner, “Biden's $14B DOL Budget Addresses Child Labor, Paid Leave,” Law360, March 11, 2024, https://www.law360.com/articles/1812357/biden-s14b-dol-budget-addresses-child-labor-paid-leave.

[52] Heldman, “There is More Work to Be Done.”

[53] Letitia M. Saucedo and Andrea Senteno, “Children, Labor, and Child Labor,” UC Davis Law Review 57, no. 2967 (June 2024): 2994.

[54] Matuson, “The Forever Labor Shortage.”

[55] Milczarek-Desai, “(Hidden) in Plain Sight,” 352, 373.

[56] Ross Eisenbrey, “Bush Budget Spends 100 Times More to Regulate Unions,” Economic Policy Institute, June 4, 2008, https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20080604/.

[57] Steve Contorno, “Trump Claims Not to Know Who Is Behind Project 2025,” CNN Politics, updated July 11, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project-2025/index.html. The Heritage Foundation, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (2023): 595.

[58] Bradford J. Kelley et al., “Federal Court Denies DOL a ‘Hot Goods’ Injunction over Child Labor Allegations,” Littler Mendelson P.C., July 16, 2024, https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/federal-court-denies-dol-hotgoods-injunction-over-child-labor-allegations.

[59] U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy to Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor Julie A. Su, June 30, 2024, https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/loper_bright_letter_dolpdf.pdf.

[60] U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Child Labor Civil Money Penalty Assessments for Nonserious Injury and Noninjury Violations, Field Assistance Bulletin 2023-4, November 28, 2023, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/fab/fab2023_4.pdf. Logan Pineda, “Missing and Exploited for Child Labor: Central American Migrant Children,” Eagleton Political Journal, 3rd ed. (Rutgers University Eagleton Institute of Politics, 2024), https://eagletonpoliticaljournal.rutgers.edu/missing-and-exploited-for-child-labor-centralamerican-migrant-children/

[61] U.S. Congress, House, Justice for Exploited Children Act of 2023, HR 2388, 118th Cong., introduced in House March 29, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/housebill/2388?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%222388%22%7D&s=1&r=4. U.S. Congress, House, Combating Child Labor Act, HR 2956, 118th Cong., introduced in House April 27, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/housebill/2956/text?s=2&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22H.R.+2956%22%7D.

[62] Pineda, “Missing and Exploited.”

[63] United States Representative Rosa DeLauro, “As Child Labor Violations Skyrocket, DeLauro, Casey, Murray, Introduce Legislation to Combat Child Labor Exploitation,” news release, October 26, 2023, https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/child-labor-violations-skyrocket-delauro-casey-murrayintroduce.

[64] Milczarek-Desai, “(Hidden) in Plain Sight,” 380, 381, 385.

[65] Lorena Roque and Sapna Mehta, “CLASP Federal Recommendations to Combat Child Labor,” The Center for Law and Social Policy, March 7, 2024, https://www.clasp.org/publications/fact-sheet/clasp-federalrecommendations-to-combat-child-labor/.

[66] Milczarek-Desai, “(Hidden) in Plain Sight,” 401–405

[67] Kamphausen, “House Votes Yes on Federal Child Labor Amendment.”

[68] Lauren Kaori Gurley, “Trump Administration Moves to Fight Programs that Cut Child Labor Abroad,” The Washington Post, March 27, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/27/trump-labor-departmentinternational-child-labor/.