Section 15(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1068, prohibits "any person" from introducing into interstate commerce goods produced in violation of the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the Act. The question in this case is whether § 15(a)(1) applies to holders of collateral obtained pursuant to a security agreement.

* In 1983, petitioner entered into a financing agreement with Qualitex Corporation, a clothing manufacturer and the corporate predecessor to Ely Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries Rockford Textile Mills, Inc., and Ely & Walker, Inc. (collectively Ely). Under the terms of the financing arrangement, petitioner agreed to loan up to $11 million to provide working capital for Ely. In return, Ely granted petitioner a security interest in inventory, accounts receivable, and other assets. Petitioner perfected its security interest under applicable state law.

The financing agreement imposed various reporting requirements on Ely, including the submission to petitioner of a weekly schedule of inventory, a monthly balance sheet and income statement, and reports of accounts receivable. Petitioner also monitored the collateral upon which it made cash advances through a system of audits and on-site inspections. In the fall of 1984, Ely's sales began to fall below projections, and the balance on the loan began to increase, reaching over $9.5 million by February 1985. Ely stopped reporting to petitioner in January 1985. On February 8, petitioner stopped advancing funds and demanded payment in full. At the request of Ely's management, however, petitioner did not immediately foreclose. It gave Ely an opportunity to devise a plan for continuing its operations, but Ely was unable to do so. Petitioner waited until February 19, at which time it took possession of the collateral, including Ely's inventory of finished goods.

Ely's employees continued to work until February 19, when Ely ceased all operations and closed its manufacturing facilities. Because Ely defaulted on its payroll, the employees did not receive any wages for pay periods between January 27 and February 19. The Department of Labor concluded that the items manufactured during these times were produced in violation of §§ 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, and that under § 15(a)(1), they were "hot goods" that could not be introduced into interstate commerce.1 Acting on information that petitioner intended to transport these goods in interstate commerce, the Secretary of Labor sought to enjoin shipment.

In an action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Secretary moved for a preliminary injunction and sought a temporary restraining order to prohibit Ely and petitioner from placing the goods in interstate commerce. The District Court denied the application for a temporary restraining order but, after a hearing, granted the Secretary's motion for a preliminary injunction. Donovan v. Rockford Textile Mills, Inc., 608 F.Supp. 215 (1985). The Under Secretary of Labor then filed another complaint against Ely and petitioner, this time in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. This complaint was also accompanied by a motion for a preliminary injunction and application for a temporary restraining order. The District Court granted the temporary restraining order and later granted the Under Secretary's motion for a preliminary injunction. Ford v. Ely Group, Inc., 621 F.Supp. 22 (1985).

Both District Courts held that § 15(a)(1), which makes it unlawful for any person to ship "hot goods" in interstate commerce, prohibited not only Ely but also petitioner from transporting or selling items produced by employees who had not been paid in conformity with §§ 6 and 7 of the FLSA. They found this reading of § 15(a)(1) consistent with congressional intent to exclude from interstate commerce goods produced under substandard labor conditions. 608 F.Supp., at 217; 621 F.Supp., at 25-26. The courts concluded that

" 'in light of the purposes of the Act, it would be an unjust and harsh result for the creditor to get the benefit of the labor of the employees during the period of time they produced goods and were not paid as provided by the Act; a benefit which the creditor would not have without the employees['] labor.' " Id., at 26 (quoting 608 F.Supp., at 217).2

The two cases were consolidated on appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. Brock v. Ely Group, Inc., 788 F.2d 1200 (1986). Following the plain language of § 15(a)(1), the majority concluded that "any person" as used in that section applies to secured creditors. Id., at 1202-1203. Like the District Courts, it found this result consistent with the purpose of the FLSA: to exclude tainted goods from interstate commerce. Id., at 1203. The Court of Appeals rejected the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Wirtz v. Powell Knitting Mills Co., 360 F.2d 730 (1966), which had held § 15(a)(1) inapplicable to secured creditors who take possession of goods produced in violation of the FLSA. 788 F.2d, at 1204-1205. The Sixth Circuit noted that Congress created only two exceptions to the broad scope of § 15(a)(1), one for common carriers and one for good faith purchasers, id. at 1205, and concluded that "Powell Knitting Mills created an exception for secured creditors that Congress did not and has not deemed appropriate." Id., at 1206. The dissenting judge would have followed Powell Knitting Mills. He maintained that in enacting the "hot goods" provision, Congress was concerned with violations of the Act occurring in the course of the ongoing production of goods by a solvent manufacturer, not, as here, by an insolvent corporation that has ceased operations. Id., at 1207.

We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict among the Circuits.3 479 U.S. 929, 107 S.Ct. 397, 93 L.Ed.2d 350 (1986). We now affirm.

The FLSA mandates the payment of minimum wage and overtime compensation to covered employees. Section 6(a) provides that every employer, as defined in the Act, "shall pay to each of his employees" wages not less than the specified minimum rate; § 7(a)(1) prohibits employment of any employee in excess of 40 hours per week "unless such employee receives compensation" at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate. Petitioner does not contest the lower courts' findings that Ely failed to pay its employees at all for several weeks immediately preceding the plant closings. Consequently, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that the goods produced during this period were manufactured in violation of § 6 and/or § 7 of the FLSA and are "hot goods" for the purposes of § 15(a)(1).4 See 788 F.2d, at 1201.

Section 15(a)(1) prohibits "any person" from introducing goods produced in violation of § 6 or § 7 of the FLSA into interstate commerce. Section 3(a) defines "person" as "an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, or any organized group of persons." 29 U.S.C. § 203(a). As a corporate entity, petitioner clearly falls within the plain language of the statute. Section 15(a)(1) contains two exemptions to the general prohibition on interstate shipment of "hot goods." The first, enacted as part of the original FLSA, exempts common carriers from the prohibition on transportation of such goods. The second, added in 1949, exempts a purchaser who acquired the goods for value, without notice of any violation, and "in good faith in reliance on written assurance from the producer that the goods were produced in compliance with the requirements" of the Act.

Petitioner does not claim to come within either statutory exemption. Rather, it argues that the exemptions reflect congressional intent to limit application of the "hot goods" provision to culpable parties, and therefore, "innocent" secured creditors should not be subject to the Act.5 We disagree. Although §§ 6 and 7 only require "employers" to pay minimum wage and overtime, § 15(a)(1) refers to "any person," not "any employer." Congress limited other provisions of the FLSA as petitioner suggests,6 which indicates that its failure to do so in § 15(a)(1) was not inadvertent. That Congress identified only two narrow categories of "innocent" persons who were not subject to the "hot goods" provision suggests that all other persons, innocent or not, are subject to § 15(a)(1).7 We find no indication that Congress actually considered application of the "hot goods" provision to secured creditors when it enacted the FLSA. By claiming a general exemption for creditors, without any duty to ascertain compliance with the FLSA, petitioner is asking us to put creditors in a better position than good-faith purchasers, for whom Congress specifically added an exemption.

In the past, the Court has refused "[t]o extend an exemption to other than those plainly and unmistakably within [the FLSA's] terms and spirit." A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 493, 65 S.Ct. 807, 808, 89 L.Ed. 1095 (1945). Similarly, where the FLSA provides exemptions "in detail and with particularity," we have found this to preclude "enlargement by implication." Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., 322 U.S. 607, 617, 64 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 88 L.Ed. 1488 (1944). See also Powell v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 512, 70 S.Ct. 755, 763, 94 L.Ed. 1017 (1950); Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U.S. 178, 183-184, 66 S.Ct. 511, 513-514, 90 L.Ed. 607 (1946). We see no reason to deviate from our traditional approach in this case.

Petitioner urges us to look beyond the plain language of the statute, citing the often-quoted passage from Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 12 S.Ct. 511, 512, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892): "[A] thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." According to petitioner, the sole aim of the FLSA was to establish decent wages and hours for American workers. This goal, petitioner claims, is not furthered by application of § 15(a)(1) to creditors who acquire "hot goods" by foreclosure and are not themselves responsible for the minimum wage and overtime violations. However, we conclude that the legislative intent fully supports the result achieved by application of the plain language.

While improving working conditions was undoubtedly one of Congress' concerns, it was certainly not the only aim of the FLSA. In addition to the goal identified by petitioner, the Act's declaration of policy, contained in § 2(a), reflects Congress' desire to eliminate the competitive advantage enjoyed by goods produced under substandard conditions.8 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). This Court has consistently recognized this broad regulatory purpose. "The motive and purpose of the present regulation are plainly . . . that interstate commerce should not be made the instrument of competition in the distribution of goods produced under substandard labor conditions, which competition is injurious to the commerce." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 115, 61 S.Ct. 451, 457, 85 L.Ed. 609 (1941). See also Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 296, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 1959, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 189, 88 S.Ct. 2017, 2020, 20 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1968); Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 727, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 1475, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947).

Application of § 15(a)(1) to secured creditors furthers this goal by excluding tainted goods from interstate commerce. Had the Department of Labor not obtained an injunction in this case, petitioner, as a secured creditor, would have converted several weeks of labor by the debtor's employees into goods covered by its security interest; the "hot goods" produced by these uncompensated employees would have competed with goods produced in conformity with the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements. Moreover, prohibiting foreclosing creditors from selling "hot goods" also advances the goal identified by petitioner. Secured creditors often monitor closely the operations of employer-borrowers, as petitioner did in this case. They may be in a position to insist on compliance with the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements. As the District Court for the Western District observed: "[I]f foreclosing creditors are free to ship and sell tainted goods across state lines, the temptation to overextend credit to marginal producers is strong, as is the likelihood that such producers will become unable to meet their payrolls. The reason for this is that finance companies and institutions stand to reap financial gain by keeping such producers in business. A holding by this Court that creditors may not ship and sell in interstate commerce goods produced in violation of the Act will not only protect complying manufacturers from the unfair competition of such tainted goods, but, we submit, it will also discourage the type of commercial financing which leads to minimum wage and overtime violations." 621 F.Supp., at 26 (emphasis added).

A literal application of § 15(a)(1) does not grant employees a priority in "hot goods" superior to that which a secured creditor has under state law. Petitioner's rights in the collateral as against Ely are unchanged by our holding. Petitioner still owns the goods, subject only to the "hot goods" provision, which prevents it from placing them in interstate commerce. The employees have not acquired a possessory interest in the goods.9 Indeed, as the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee recognized, the Secretary brought this action "not to compel the foreclosing creditor to pay the statutory wages or to put pressure on the defaulting producer to pay such wages, but to keep tainted goods from entering the channels of interstate commerce." Id., at 25-26. That petitioner can cure the employer's violation of the FLSA by paying the employees the statutorily required wages does not give the employees a "lien" on the assets superior to that of a secured creditor.10

In numerous other statutes, Congress has exercised its authority under the Commerce Clause to exclude from interstate commerce goods which, for a variety of reasons, it considers harmful. Like the FLSA, these regulatory measures bar goods not produced in conformity with specified standards from the channels of commerce.11 As the District Courts in this case recognized, secured creditors take their security interests subject to the laws of the land. See 621 F.Supp., at 26; 608 F.Supp., at 217. If, for example, the goods at issue in this case were fabrics that failed to meet federal flammability standards and were therefore banned from interstate commerce under the Flammable Fabrics Act, 67 Stat. 111, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1191 et seq., surely petitioner could not argue that it had a right to sell the inventory merely by virtue of its status as a secured creditor. "Hot goods" are not inherently hazardous, but Congress has determined that they are contraband nonetheless. We see no reason for a different result merely because a different form of contraband is involved.

We hold that § 15(a)(1)'s broad prohibition on interstate shipment of "hot goods" applies to secured creditors who acquire the goods pursuant to a security agreement. This result is mandated by the plain language of the statute, and it furthers the goal of eliminating the competitive advantage enjoyed by goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice SCALIA, concurring.

While I would affirm the Court of Appeals even if I agreed with petitioner that "the sole aim of the FLSA was to establish decent wages and hours for American workers," ante, at 36, and that this goal "is not furthered by application of § 15(a)(1)" to secured creditors, ibid., I do not disagree with the Court's conclusions in Part II-B, and therefore join its opinion in full.

Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice WHITE joins, dissenting.

The statute that the Court construes today was enacted during the Great Depression. Although business failures were an everyday occurrence in 1938, nothing in the language or history of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act) suggests that Congress intended that Act to address the unfortunate situation that arises when an employer is unable to pay his employees for the final days of work that produced the inventory at hand when the plant was forced to close.

Indeed, if there is one conclusion that both parties before us, and every court that has ever considered this matter, agree upon, it is that Congress did not "actually conside[r] application of the 'hot goods' provision to secured creditors when it enacted the FLSA." Ante, at 34—35. This historical fact carries much weight in this case. The subjects of bankruptcy and secured transactions constitute discrete bodies of law, which are generally governed by the Federal Bankruptcy Code and by state law, respectively.1 Instead of interpreting Congress' silence as evincing intent to invade these areas with an Act whose purposes do not fit nicely into these contexts,2 I would interpret Congress' utter silence as showing that Congress never intended to apply the FLSA to these unique areas of the law.3 See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 47, 107 S.Ct. 353, 359-360, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986).

Even were I not confident in that conclusion, however, I certainly believe that the arguments in favor of petitioner's construction are substantial enough to warrant our adherence to settled precedent. During the 28 years from the enactment of the FLSA through 1966 it appears that no Secretary of Labor ever sought an injunction against the sale of "hot goods" in circumstances such as these. See Wirtz v. Powell Knitting Mills Co., 360 F.2d 730, 733 (CA2 1966). When a Secretary did attempt to use the statute in this novel way, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarily rejected his interpretation, explaining:

"We believe that there was no Congressional intent that concerns in [the creditor's] position be within § 15. The purpose of forcing payment of wages should not apply to the creditor who advanced funds long before the default in wages, and who merely forecloses his lien, at least where the value of the goods acquired does not exceed the debt left unpaid. Since [the creditor] is not giving present consideration, it can neither force [the employer] to make payment nor withhold wages from its payment and pay the wage earners itself. It already provided [the employer] with cash, part of which no doubt went for wages that were paid. Since the only reason to give effect to § 15 would be to force [the creditor] to pay the wages, § 15 ought not apply to it, in a backhanded way of attacking its secured position.

"The Secretary stresses the point that when the Congress desired to protect bona fide purchasers from the strict wording of the Act it found it easy to do so by amending the Act with appropriate safeguards. This would indeed be persuasive if there were indications that the present problem of the foreclosing secured creditor had been brought to the attention of the Congress. The argument loses force because this was apparently never done, and the Secretary's present contention is much weakened by the fact that since the enactment of the Act in 1938 neither he nor his predecessors appear to have so read the Act, in spite of the myriad of instances in which similar security titles must have been enforced." Id., at 733.

I would have subscribed to this reasoning in 1966, and certainly do now. In the more than 20 years since the Second Circuit's decision, its construction of the statute has not been called into question by the courts that have addressed the issue, except in the decisions now on review. See Shultz v. Factors, Inc., 65 CCH LC ¶ 32,487 (CA4 1971); Dunlop v. Sportsmasters, Inc., 77 CCH LC ¶ 33,293 (ED Tenn.1975). Given the Secretary's practice prior to the Powell Knitting decision, the judicial acceptance of that decision, and the fact that Congress has not seen fit to amend the statute in light of these decisions,4 I believe that the Powell Knitting construction should be retained until Congress rejects it. See Commissioner v. Fink, 483 U.S. 89, 102-103, 107 S.Ct. 2729, 2736-2737, 97 L.Ed.2d 74 (1987) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 268, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2359, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.