Lochner v. new York

Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court . It is considereda milestone in the case law of labor law in the United States . The US Supreme Court ruled that working time restrictions violated the 14th Amendment . The decision is now considered de facto canceled.

A majority of five judges believed that a law requiring employees to work less than 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week in the bakery violated the due process clause, which they believed contained a fundamental right to freedom of contract . It ruled that there was, therefore, an “inappropriate, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and freedom of individuals to enter into contracts”. Four judges rejected this view. Oliver Wendell Holmes' rejection has become one of the most famous opinions in US legal history.

Lochner is one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, which gave the following era, the Lochner era . During that time, the Supreme Court made several decisions invalidating federal and state laws aimed at regulating working conditions during the Progressive Era and the Great Depression . That time ended with the decision of West Coast Hotel Co. Parrish (1937), in which the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the state Washington enacted minimum wage confirmed legislating.

facts

Joseph Lochner owned Lochner's Home Bakery in Utica . He believed that the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 was unconstitutional. The Bakeshop Act regulated health and safety requirements in bakeries and prohibited employees from working more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week in bakeries. In 1899 Lochner was charged with against Art. 8 Chap. 415 to have violated § 110 of the law of 1897 by wrongly and illegally allowing an employee working for him to work more than 60 hours in a week. He was fined $ 25 (800). For a second violation in 1901, the Oneida County Court fined Lochner $ 50 (1,600). Lochner appealed against his second conviction (appeal) a. However, the conviction was upheld 3-2 in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court . He appealed again to the New York Court of Appeals , New York's highest court, where he lost 4 to 3 votes. He then took his case to the United States Supreme Court .

Lochner's appeal was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"[...] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In a number of cases related to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) , the Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause (contained in both the 5th and 14th Amendment) is not only a procedural guarantee, but also an essential, substantial limitation on the interventions that Government can exercise against individuals. Although this interpretation of the due process clause is controversial (see Substantial Due Process ), it was firmly anchored in American case law until the end of the 19th century. Lochner argued that the right to freedom of contract is one of the rights encompassed by a substantive due process .

In the scientific debate, some participants have found that when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, 27 out of 37 state constitutions contained Locke provisions that typically said:

"All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring and possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

Because such clauses were " deeply rooted in American history and tradition" , they can serve as a strong indication of the original meaning of the scope and nature of the fundamental rights contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution Eyes of the judges of the Lochner era are protected to be interpreted.

The Supreme Court had already seven years earlier in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) affirmed that the due process clause contained a fundamental right to freedom of contract. However, the court had assumed that the law was not absolute, but was subject to the police power of the states. For example in Holden v. Hardy (1898) , the Supreme Court upheld a Utah law that established an eight-hour workday for miners . In Holden , Judge Henry Brown wrote that

"The police power cannot be put forward as an excuse for oppressive and unjust legislation, it may be lawfully resorted to for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety, or morals."

The question the Lochner Supreme Court had to answer was whether the Bakery Act was an appropriate exercise of federal police power .

Lochner's lawsuit was represented by Henry Weismann, who was a major proponent of the Bakeshop Act when he was secretary of the Journeymen Bakers' Union . In his letter , Weismann condemned the idea that

"The treasured freedom of the individual [...] should be swept away under the guise of the police power of the State."

He denied New York's argument that the Bakeshop Act was a necessary health measure, claiming that the

"Average bakery of the present day is well ventilated, comfortable both summer and winter, and always sweet smelling."

Weismann's letter contained an appendix with statistics showing that the death rate of bakers was comparable to that of employees.

judgment

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the law limiting bakers' working hours was not a legitimate exercise of federal police power and was therefore unconstitutional. It was clearly behind the fundamental right to freedom of contract . Unequal bargaining power considered it irrelevant. Judge Rufus Peckham wrote the majority vote of the court .

Harlan's minority vote

Judge John Marshall Harlan drafted a minority vote, which was followed by Judges Edward Douglass White and William R. Day . Harlan claimed that freedom of contract was subject to state regulation when it was within the scope of state police powers . Harlan offered the following rule to determine whether such laws are unconstitutional:

"The power of the courts to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare exists only" when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. "

Harlan argued that the burden of proof should be on the party who deems such a law to be unconstitutional.

Harlan's vote was of the opinion that the court had not given sufficient weight to the state's argument that the law was a valid health measure that addressed a legitimate state interest. Harlan claimed it was

"Plain that this statute was enacted to protect the physical well-being of those who work in bakery and confectionery establishments."

In response to the majority claim that the job of baker is not an unhealthy profession, he quoted extensively from academic studies describing respiratory diseases and other risks for bakers. He argued that the Supreme Court should have submitted to the New York Legislature's ruling that long hours put the health of bakery workers at risk:

“If the end which the legislature seeks to accomplish be one to which its power extends, and if the means employed to that end, although not the wisest or best, are yet not plainly and palpably unauthorized by law, then the court cannot interfere. ”

Holmes minority vote

Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote three paragraphs in which he accused the majority of judicial activism and alleged that the case was

"Decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain."

In particular, he refused that the fourteenth amendment stipulated freedom of contract. Laws against shop opening hours on Sundays and usury are "ancient examples" for the opposite:

"The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer 's Social Statics ."

He emphasized that "a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory."

Importance and Legacy

“The case is famous because there is virtually universal agreement among judges and scholars that it was incorrectly decided. More important, it is the case in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the most influential dissenting opinion in the Court's history. "

- John Paul Stevens , 2011

The case law of the Supreme Court on the due process over the next three decades was inconsistent, but in several major work cases after "Lochner" it took a narrow view of the police powers of the states. In Coppage v. Kansas (1915) the court annulled laws that prohibited " yellow-dog contracts ". Likewise, in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) found that minimum wage laws violated the due process clause . Judge William Howard Taft drafted a minority vote, arguing that the Court should have overturned the Lochner decision . The doctrine of the substantial due process was linked to a narrow interpretation of the competencies of the Congress under the commerce clause . Judges James McReynolds , George Sutherland , Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler were the main proponents of traditional restrictions on government in the 1920s and 1930s. They were called the Four Horsemen of Reaction by supporters of the New Deal . All four were considered to represent the principles of laissez faire .

In 1934 the Supreme Court in Nebbia v. New York that there is no fundamental right to freedom of contract. In 1937 the Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish explicitly made his decision in Adkins . This marked the end of the Lochner era.

Although the Supreme Court did not expressly repeal Lochner , it decided to subordinate itself more closely to the decisions of the state legislature (judicial defense) . The court ruled in Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma (1955) buried an economic substantial due process . In this case, a unanimous Supreme Court declared,

"The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought."

At a time when political pressure on the judiciary's stance on the New Deal was mounting, the Court's sleight of law has sometimes been referred to as " the switch in time that saved nine ".

The modern substantive due process

In the post- Lochner era , the Supreme Court applied a lower standard of review to address restrictions on economic freedom. A higher standard is used when reviewing legislation that violates personal freedoms. A number of cases based on the 1923 opinion of Judge McReynolds in Meyer v. Going back in Nebraska , citing Lochner as limiting police powers , has introduced a right to privacy through a substantial due process . More recently, the Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court found that women have a right to privacy in order to decide whether or not to have an abortion. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey this right, however, without reference to a right to "privacy".

Scientific processing

The decision of the Supreme Court in Lochner v. New York has been criticized by legal scholars. Law professor Bernard Siegan described it as "one of the most condemned cases in United States history". According to the Center for American Progress , a left-wing think tank, law professors often refer to Lochner, Plessy v. Ferguson or Korematsu v. United States as examples of "how judges should not behave".

Lochner is sometimes used as an abbreviation for the conservative constitutional theory.

However, it has also been heavily criticized by conservative and libertarian lawyers because the Lochner Court relied on substantive due process , a doctrine that contradicts the original understanding of the constitution. For example, the conservative legal scholar Robert Bork called the decision an "abomination" and the "quintessence of judicial usurpation of power".

Similarly, former Attorney General Edwin Meese said the Supreme Court "ignored the limitations of the Constitution and blatantly usurped legislative authority." Siegan, a self-proclaimed libertarian, described it as "a symbol of judicial dereliction and abuse."

The decision has also found defenders among libertarians: the Cato Institute and scientists Richard Epstein and Randy Barnett argue that Lochner rightly protected economic freedom. Randy Barnett has argued that Lochner's presumption in favor of freedom of contract was fundamentally correct; the decision was only wrong insofar as it continued the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution from the Slaughter House Cases . According to Barnett, freedom of contract is properly included in the Privileges or Immunities Clause , not the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. David Bernstein, in Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform, argues that the Lochner ruling can be based on Supreme Court precedents and that the emphasis on the limits of the police powers of the states influenced the early civil rights and civil rights cases of the court.

literature

• David E. Bernstein: Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform . University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2012, ISBN 978-0-226-04353-1 .
• David E. Bernstein: Lochner v. New York : A Centennial Retrospective . In: Washington University Law Quarterly . 85, No. 5, 2005, pp. 1469-1528. .
• Kermit Hall: The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States . Oxford University Press, New York 1992, ISBN 0195058356 . .
• Paul Kens: Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial . University Press of Kansas, Lawrence 1998, ISBN 978-0155068674 . .
• Mark Tushnet : I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases . Beacon Press, Boston 2008, ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6 , pp. 81-92. .
• Charles Warren : The Supreme Court in United States History , (3 volumes), Little, Brown and Co., Boston 1924.

Web links

• Summary of Lochner v. new York
• " Lochner v. New York Supreme Court Landmark Case " from C-SPAN 's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions

See also

Wikisource: Lochner v. New York  - Sources and full texts (English)

Individual evidence

1. ↑ 198 US 45 (1905)
2. ↑ Bernstein, David. Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts from Reconstruction to the New Deal , p. 100 (Duke University Press, 2001): "The Court also directly overturned Lochner by adding that it is no 'longer open to question that it is within the legislative power to fix maximum hours. '"
3. ^ Dorf, Michael and Morrison, Trevor. Constitutional Law , p. 18 (Oxford University Press, 2010).
4. ↑ Patrick, John. The Supreme Court of the United States: A Student Companion , p. 362 (Oxford University Press, 2006).
5. ↑ Michael J. Philips: The Lochner Court, Myth and Reality: Substantive Due Process from the 1890s to the 1930s . Greenwood, 2001, ISBN 0-275-96930-4 , p. 10.
6. ↑ Steven G. Calabresi, Sarah Agudo: Individual Rights Under State Constitutions When the Fourteenth Amendment Was Ratified in 1868: What Rights Are Deeply Rooted in American History and Tradition? . In: Tex. L. Rev. . 87, No. 7, 2008, p. 88.
7. ↑ John Paul Stevens : Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir . Little, Brown and Company , 2011, ISBN 978-0-316-19980-3 , p.  25 . .
8. ↑ Quimbee: SCOTUS shifts from workers protections starting with Lochner v. New York . American Bar Association. Retrieved July 2, 2017.
9. ↑ ^{a b} Bernard H. Siegan: Economic Liberties and the Constitution . Univ of Chicago Pr, 1980, ISBN 978-0226756639 , p. 23 , cited in Geoffrey R Stone: Constitutional Law , 6th. Edition, Aspen Publishers, 2009, ISBN 978-0735577190 , p. 744.
10. ↑ Millhiser, Ian. Rand Paul praises horrendous Supreme Court decision, would let employers ruthlessly exploit workers . ThinkProgress , 2013-03-07.
11. ↑ Ian Millhiser Described as "Worse Than Lochner" constitutional interpretation did would hold unconstitutional all affirmative action policies as well as Social Security , Medicare , and Pell Grants . Ian Millhiser: Worse Than Lochner . In: Yale Law & Policy Review . June 29, 2011.
12. ^ Robert H. Bork: The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law . Free Press, 1989, ISBN 978-0029037614 , p.  44 .
13. ↑ Robert H. Bork: The Judge's Role in Law and Culture Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Ave Maria Law Review . 1, 2003, pp. 19, 21. Retrieved May 28, 2013. 
14. ^ Judicial Throwback . Archived from the original on April 29, 2012. Retrieved on July 3, 2012.
15. ↑ Exposing Global-Warming Alarmism's Grasp . Cato Institute. May – June 2011. Archived from the original on April 1st, 2012. Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved July 3, 2012. 
16. ^ Richard A. Epstein: The 'Necessary' History of Property and Liberty . In: Chapman Law Review . 6, 2003.
17. ↑ Randy E. Barnett: Foreword: What's So Wicked About Lochner? . In: NYU Journal of Law & Liberty . 1, No. 1, May 12, 2005, pp. 1-9.
18. ↑ Bernstein, David E .: Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform . University of Chicago Press, 2011, ISBN 9780226043531 .