## Facts

- Pennsylvania enacted a 1923 statute regulating bedding manufacture and sale.
- The statute categorically barred using “shoddy” as filling in comfortables, even if sterilized.
- “Shoddy” included textile clippings and remnants and could include material derived from used garments and rags.
- The same statute allowed other second-hand filling materials (e.g., feathers, down, textile remnants) if sterilized.
- Palmer Brothers Co., a Connecticut manufacturer of comfortables, used shoddy in a substantial portion of its products and sold large quantities in Pennsylvania.
- Evidence showed shoddy could be effectively sterilized so that it was harmless.
- A Pennsylvania enforcement official threatened prosecution under the statute; Palmer Brothers sought to enjoin enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether an absolute statutory prohibition on using shoddy in comfortables, even when sterilized and shown by evidence to be harmless, is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the state police power that violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
2. Whether the statute’s disparate treatment of shoddy compared to other sterilizable second-hand materials supports invalidation (including under equal-protection reasoning).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed an injunction against enforcement of the shoddy prohibition.
- The Court held the categorical ban on shoddy, even when sterilized, was so arbitrary and unreasonable that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court treated the statute’s allowance of other sterilized second-hand materials as relevant to showing the unreasonableness of singling out shoddy.
- Justice Holmes dissented, arguing for greater deference to legislative judgments about public-health risks.

## Legal Principles

- States may regulate health and safety under the police power, but due process is violated when a restriction is arbitrary and unreasonable in relation to its asserted health objective.
- A challenger may overcome deference to legislative findings by establishing facts (including through evidence) showing the regulation lacks a real connection to public health.
- In assessing arbitrariness, courts may consider the statute’s treatment of comparable items; permitting similar materials subject to sterilization can undermine justification for an outright ban on one material.
- A total prohibition is constitutionally suspect when the asserted risk can be addressed through less restrictive measures such as sterilization requirements, inspection, or related controls.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Pennsylvania’s absolute ban on shoddy-filled comfortables because the record showed sterilization could render shoddy harmless and the statute otherwise allowed other sterilized second-hand fillings, making the selective prohibition an arbitrary deprivation of liberty and property under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926)