Lochner v. New York

5 Rules

(1)Protection of liberty of contract (2)States have some rights under police power to interfere with that liberty (difference b/w him and Harlan, who gives more liberty to states) (3)Not within judgment of court if within power of the state (4) not a labor or health law so it doesn't fit within police power (5)go beyond statute to find out what the framers meant

Sager notes on Holmes Dissent in Lochner

1st line: decided under laissez faire economics Gray: not whether he agrees or disagrees, but what is the law 3rd yellow: Herbert Spencer; Last yellow: look beyond statue and look at the motive? formalism? But what if the dominant opinion was social darwinism? would he advocate that?

Judgment

Locheners conviction is reversed

Facts

Lochner was fined for violating a state labor law. The law prohibited employment in bakeries for more than 60 hours a week or more than 10 hours a day. Lochner permitted an employee to work in his bakery for more than 60 hours in one week.

Opinion

The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the 14th amendment. The right to purchase or sell labor is art of the liberty protected by this amendment as well. However, the states do posses certian police powers related to the safety, health, morals, and general wellfare of the public. if the contract is onee in which the state in the exercise of its police powers has the right to prohibit, the 14th will not prevent the state's prohibition. When, as here, the state acts to limit the right to labor or the right to contract, it is necessary to dtermin whether the irghts of the state or the individual shall prevail. The 14th limits the state's evercise of police power; otherwise the state would have the unbounded power once it stated that legislation was to conserve the health, morals, or safety of the people. it is NOT sufficient to assert that the act relates to public health. Rather, it must have a more direct relation, to his labor. in this case, there is no reasobale foundation for holdign the act to be necessary to the health of the public or of bakery officials. Statutes usch as this one are merely meddlesome with individual rights. Htey are invalid unless there is some fair gorund to say that there is material danger to the public health or the employees helaht if the labor hours are not curtailed. It cannot be said that the production of healthy bread depends upon the hours that the employees work. nor is the trade of a baker an unhealthy one ot the degree which would authorize the legislature to interfere iwththe rightw to labor and of thefree contract.

Dissent by Holmes

The word "liberty" in the 14th amendment should not invalidate a statute unless it can be said that a reasonable person would say that the statute infringes on fundamental principles of our people and our law. A reasonable person might think this statute is valid. Citizens' liberty is regulated by many state laws which have been held to be valid, ie the Sunday laws, the lottery laws, laws requiring vaccination.

Dissent by Harlan

Whether or not this is wise legislation is not a question for the court. It is impossible to say that there is not a substantial or real regulation between the statute and the state's legitimate goals. This decision brings under the Court's supervision matters which supposedly belonged exclusively to the state legislatures.

Holding

Yes

Sager Notes

case classified as "social darwinism" Why this was one of the few cases they struck down? (Robert Bourne thought it was legal? usurpation of the worst kind) (vintage NY special interest law) (anti-immigrant legislation by attacking small bakeries and not larger ones, driving immigrants out of businesses and raising prices) (bad lawyering--> NY AG, Julius Mair had another case in SC over taxes of sewer lines argued just prior to Lochner so he didn't have a lot of time.)

Issue:

to be fair, reasonable and appropriate use of a state's police power, must an act have a direct relation, as a means to an end, to an appropriate and legitimate state objective?