In the 1918 Supreme Court case Hammer v. Dagenhart, the justices struck down a federal law that tried to ban child labor. They said Congress couldn’t use its power over “commerce” (trade between states) to regulate how factories made goods, even if kids were working there.

Fast-forward to the 1964 Heart of Atlanta Motel case, where the Court did the opposite. They upheld a law banning racial segregation in hotels and restaurants by saying discrimination affects interstate commerce. In other words, they treated people (like customers) as part of “commerce” to force businesses to end segregation. If they hadn’t, segregation might have continued.

Justice Douglas disagreed in his dissent, asking: Why did we fight the Civil War to end slavery—where people were treated like property or “articles of commerce”—if we’re now okay with exploiting kids in a similar way?

Here’s the weird irony: The Civil War was fought to stop treating humans as property or commerce (ending slavery). But in Heart of Atlanta, the Court had to treat discrimination as a commerce issue to stop it—basically using the same “commerce” idea to promote equality. It’s a strange twist of fate.

As a side note, while the U.S. eventually banned child labor through other means, places like China and some other countries still allow it today.