Professional Documents
Culture Documents
31) Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
31) Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
45 (1905)
Topic: US Jurisprudence Substantive Due Process
Facts:
The owner of a bakery in the New York city of Utica, Joseph Lochner, was
charged with violating a state law known as the Bakeshop Act. This law set
maximum hour requirements for bakery employees at 10 hours per day and 60
hours per week, in addition to regulating sanitary conditions. While its provisions
appeared benign, they may have resulted from anti-immigrant sentiment in the
industry, since foreign-born bakers who were willing to work longer hours were
seen as a threat to American bakers. Lochner was accused of permitting an
employee to work more than 60 hours in one week.
The first charge resulted in a fine of $25, and a second charge a few years later
resulted in a fine of $50. Although Lochner did not challenge the first conviction,
he appealed the second but was denied in state courts by narrow decisions. He
argued that the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted to contain the
freedom to contract among the rights encompassed by substantive due
process.
Issue: What is the test for determining whether legislation which seeks to impose
restrictions upon an individuals general right to make a contract in relation to his
business is not invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Held:
The court must determine whether the legislation is a fair, reasonable and
appropriate exercise of the police power of the State, or an unreasonable,
unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to enter into
a contract related to his business. A law that affects freedom of contract is
unconstitutional if it is not reasonably related to a legitimate purpose of
protecting public health.
The general right to make a contract in relation to ones business is an individual
liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The states police powers
however empower them to prevent individuals from making certain kinds of
contracts. The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit a state from
prohibiting a contract if the state has the right to do so through the
legitimate exercise of its police power.
The court held that in this case there was no reasonable ground for
interfering with the right of free contract by determining a bakers hours of
labor. Under such circumstances, the freedom of master and employee to contract
with each other in relation to their employment cannot be prohibited or interfered
with without violating the Constitution.
Dissent (Harlan)
The police power has been uniformly recognized by both the federal and state
courts. All the cases agree that this power extends at least to the protection of the
lives, the health, and the safety of the public from injury caused by others in
exercising their own rights. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other
Amendment was designed to interfere with the power of the State to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the
people. The State, in the exercise of its powers, may not unduly interfere with
the right of the citizen to enter into contracts that may be necessary and
essential in the enjoyment of the inherent rights belonging to everyone.
This statute was enacted in order to protect the physical well-being of those
who work in bakery and confectionery establishments. The statute must be
taken as expressing the belief of the people of New York that, as a general rule,
and in the case of the average man, labor in excess of sixty hours during a
week in such establishments may endanger the health of those who thus
labor. I find it impossible, in view of common experience, to say that there is no
real or substantial relation between the means employed by the State and the end
sought to be accomplished by its legislation.
We should sustain the statute as not being in conflict with the Federal
Constitution because it is has not been shown to be plainly and palpably
inconsistent with it. The judgment should be affirmed.
Dissent (Holmes)
The word liberty in the fourteenth amendment does not invalidate a statute
unless it reasonably can be said that the statute infringes fundamental principles
of our people and our law. A citizens liberty is regulated by many state laws
which have been held to be valid, i.e., the Sunday laws, the lottery laws, and laws
requiring vaccination. This law is clearly related to public health and ought to be
upheld. The Constitution was not intended to embody a particular economic view
and is not a document about economic philosophy.