Lochner v. New York

In 1905, a bakery owner named Joseph Lochner faced an issue that challenged the limits of American liberty: could the government tell him and his employees the maximum amount of time they were forced to work? New York’s Bakeshop Act said yes; the act made it clear that employees could not work for more than sixty hours a week. New York argued that the purpose of the act was for employee health, sanitation, and wellness; long hours combined with breathing in flour dust harmed employees. At first, Lochner complied with New York’s law and paid his $25 fine. However, when he violated the law a second time, Lochner put his foot down and refused to pay the $50 fine. The case would snake up to the Supreme Court, where one of the most controversial decisions regarding economic freedom of contract was made. 

The Breakdown: 

Lochner’s attorney argued that New York’s statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Lochner’s attorney argued that liberty included the fundamental right of freedom to contract, which Lochner wasn’t able to do due to the restrictions New York’s Bakeshop Act imposed. This argument rested on the idea of substantive due process, where it was believed that certain fundamental constitutional liberties were protected from government interference. To Lochner’s attorney, freedom of contract was one of these fundamental liberties. Under this argument, an employer and employee agreeing on working hours was a private arrangement between free individuals, and New York's interference with that arrangement was unconstitutional. 

The attorney general of New York argued that, “the New York statute under consideration involves an exercise of the police power of the State.” To New York, the Bakeshop Act wasn’t government overreach; it was a protective measure for the baker's health. By restricting the hours of labor a baker could work, it allows the baker to prioritize cleanliness, which further helped New York have healthy customers. In addition to this, the Act was also passed to combat harmful business practices by employers. 

The Majority Decision:

In a 5-4 decision, the Court found New York’s Bakeshop Act to be unconstitutional. The Court would recognize the freedom of contract argument and disagree with the state’s interpretation of the act as a broad police power. Justice Peckham, for the majority, explained that, “The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.” Peckham further pointed out how the Act prohibited the freedom of contract through the use of its own words.  He explained, “the mandate of the statute that ‘no employee shall be required or permitted to work,’ is the substantial equivalent of an enactment that ‘no employee shall contract or agree to work,’ more than ten hours per day, and, as there is no provision for special emergencies, the statute is mandatory in all cases.” Peckham further implied that the state was being overprotective of bakers and that there was “no reasonable ground on the score of health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract…” He speculated that if the law were to be upheld, the government could enforce limits on the contracts of clerks, locksmiths, and carpenters, under the guise of health and safety. Justice Peckham further asserted that the correlation between fewer work hours and more worker cleanliness was not a tenable connection to make, to justify the state’s law. A baker working fewer hours was not a guarantee that the bread would be more clean. He finally comments that the state may have had ulterior motives besides health when passing the Bakeshop Act. Under these arguments, he found the law to be invalid. 

The Dissents: Harlan and Holmes: 

The dissenting opinions attacked the majority from two directions. Harlan grounded his argument on precedent and the clear purpose of the law. He referenced Patterson v. Kentucky and explained, “It [this court] has, nevertheless, with marked distinctness and uniformity, recognized the necessity, growing out of the fundamental conditions of civil society, of upholding state police regulations which were enacted in good faith and had appropriate and direct connection with that protection to life, health, and property which each State owes to her citizens.” He further referenced Holden v. Hardy, to show that, “This right of contract, however, is itself subject to certain limitations which the State may lawfully impose in the exercise of its police powers…it has doubtless been greatly expanded in its application during the past century owing to an enormous increase in the number of dangerous occupations, or so far detrimental to the health of the employees as to demand special precautions for their wellbeing and protection…” From these cases, he argues that the right of contract has been limited by different states before in the name of health and safety. In other words, the reasoning behind New York’s law is legitimate. Harlan also references research done by a professor, who outlines the diseases bakers face due to long hours, which further bolsters the credibility of New York’s law. 

Holmes took a sharper philosophical aim, arguing that, “this case (was) decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain.” Holmes was referencing the fact that the opinion inevitably supports laissez-faire economics; because of the precedent set in this case, many businesses would be less tied down to regulations. Holmes further criticized the Court’s reliance on economic principles; he argued that the Constitution should not embody different economic theories and that the courts should defer economic issues to the legislatures. He concludes that, “it does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it (is) a proper measure on the score of health.” 

The Significance:

The precedent set in Lochner v. New York created the Lochner era, where state and federal laws that negatively affected businesses were struck down. Labor laws and minimum wage laws would all face challenges due to the precedent set in Lochner. It took Progressive and New Deal reformers thirty years later, with the threat to pack the Court, to change the Court’s decision, through West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish. In this case, the Court upheld a minimum wage law for women, which effectively overruled the Lochner era’s view of expansive economic due process. Some conservative legal scholars argue for Lochner’s rehabilitation, seeing it as a legitimate defense to government overreach. Progressive scholars view the case as a cautionary tale about courts substituting their own economic preferences for democratic judgments. Today, the debate Lochner started about the proper role of courts in economic life remains unresolved. 

Bibliography: 

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).

Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1879).

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

Constitution Center. "Lochner v. New York: Fundamental Rights and Economic Liberty."

EBSCO Research Starters. "Lochner v. New York."

Supreme Court Historical Society. "Lochner v. New York." Civics Initiative.

Library of Congress. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). Original opinion via U.S. Reports.

Congressional Research Service. "Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: Substantive Due Process." Constitution Annotated.

Full text links:

Lochner v. New York, U.S. Reports (LOC) — https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep198/usrep198045/usrep198045.pdf

Constitution Center article — https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/lochner-v-new-york-fundamental-rights-and-economic-liberty

EBSCO Research Starters — https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/lochner-v-new-york

Supreme Court Historical Society — https://civics.supremecourthistory.org/article/lochner-v-new-york/

Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution Annotated — https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/