Muller+v.+Oregon

//Curt Muller, Plaintiff in Error v. The State of Oregon. Appellant's claim: Oregon's 1903 maximum hours law is unconstitutional.//
 * Full Case Title:**

The hearings were held throughout 1908, with the decision made on February 24 of that year.
 * Date of hearing: **

Justice David Josiah Brewer presided over the case. He was born on June 20, 1837 and died in March of 1910. Brewer lived in Turkey for the first year of his life; moving back to the United States and settling in Connecticut in 1838. He attended at Wesleyan and Yale, and subsequently enrolled in Albany Law School after reading law for one year in his uncle's office. Brewer then moved to Missouri, and further to Colorado in search of gold. Returning to Kansas in 1859, Brewer was named Commissioner of the Federal Circuit Court in Leavenworth in 1861. For the next several years, Brewer jumped between serving in the Probate and Criminal Court, judging in the First Judicial District of Kansas, and acting as a city attorney. Brewer was elected to the Kansas Supreme Court in 1870, and served there for fourteen years.
 * Chief Justice and Biographical Sketch:**

On March 24, 1884, President Arthur nominated Brewer to the United States Circuit Court, where he served until being nominated to the United States Supreme Court on December 4, 1889, after 28 years of judicial work. (**by Harrison?)** He was confirmed on December 18. Brewer served until March 27, 1910. He was considered an active member of the court, and authored the unanimous opinion of the Court in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States and in landmark case Muller v. Oregon. According to University of Texas professor and Supreme Court historian Lucas Powe, "Brewer was one of the most influential justices [on] the court at the time. He was a vigorous defender of minority rights. In one case, he argued for stronger labor protections for women, while in other opinions he argued passionately for the rights of marginalized Chinese and Japanese immigrants."

In Muller v. Oregon, Oregon state labor laws were relevant to the argument, as well as the 14th Amendment and the Brandeis Brief. At the time, Oregon Labor laws regulated that women could work no more than 10 hours/day, while trying to prevent harsh working conditions. Muller was considered in violation of these laws after forcing a female employee to work longer than the legal time period. In addition, the 14th Amendment was also relevant; more specifically the Due Process Cause. This states protection against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” functioning as a major factor toward upholding equality in the labor sphere. Perhaps the most innovative influence in the Muller v. Oregon case was the "Brandeis Brief," a report done and presented by Louis Brandeis with the help of his sister-in-law, Josephine Clara Goldmark, who was a legal reformer of the National Consumers League. The brief provided data and authority regarding the effects on long working hours and brutal conditions on women. It was backed with factual evidence, and considered a driving force in the Supreme Court's utilization of factual data as opposed with legal theory; especially in cases involving the welfare of both individuals and different economic/social classes.
 * Relevant Legal Material: **

Muller v. Oregon began when Joe Haselbock, a worker at P ortland's Grand Laundry, was required to have a female launderer, Mrs. Elmer Gotcher, work more than 10 hours on September 4, 1905. Gotcher then filed a complaint against the laundry's owner, a man named Curt Muller, claiming that Muller's company had violated the Oregon maximum hours law. The Multnomah County Court ruled in favor of Gotcher and fined Muller $10. Thus, Muller appealed to the Oregon State Supreme Court. This court affirmed the County Court's decision. As a result of this, Muller decided to "challenge the constitutionality" of the state law, and took his conviction to the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Brewer then lead the court in a unanimous decision upholding the Oregon regulation.
 * Summary/Analysis & Main Argument:**

The case caught the attention of feminist and labor groups nationwide as the question of whether or not laws limiting women's working hours was a help or hindrance, as well the possibility of the case interfering with the 14th __amendment__. Feminists and women's rights groups, as well as Muller himself, argued that the Oregon law regulating work hours denied women the chance to support themselves individuals. They believed that the labor laws were in violation of the 14th amendment, and that an employer has the right to contract an employee no matter their sex or physical structure. Those of the opposite opinion, including Brandeis, advocated that a woman's physical structure and performance of 'maternal functions' puts women at a disadvantage; therefore unable to work the same as men, especially when pregnant. This mindset, embodied by the Oregon state labor laws, categorized longer hours as a factor in the deterioration of a woman's health and function. As healthy mothers are essential to healthy offspring, consequently the well-being of women becomes an object of public interest as the strength of the race is possibly jeopardized. For example,

//"That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony of the medical fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race."// 208 U.S. at 412.

In addition, although Oregon laws gave women more protection, they excluded non-whites, food and agricultural workers, and 'white-collar' educated women. Now, the case is viewed as an outlet of the government's interest in public welfare, at the time excluding the freedom of contract documented in the 14th amendment; such is the controversy surrounding the Muller v. Oregon.

In summary, the justices agreed in favor of the appellee (The State of Oregon). Muller lost and had to pay a $10 fine to the state. Feminists were against it, but progressives were happy with the ruling. Equal rights feminists thought it heavily stereotyped gender-roles, and restricted women’s financial independence. The court came to a unanimous decision, 9-0.
 * Court Decision, Members, and Vote:**

At the time, the members of the court and their length of service were as follows:
 * John M. Harlan, 31 years
 * David J. Brewer (Chief Justice), 19 years
 * Edward D. White, 14 years
 * Rufus W. Peckham, 13 years
 * William H. Moody, 2 years
 * Joseph McKenna, 10 years
 * Oliver W. Holmes, 6 years
 * William R. Day, 5 years
 * Melville W. Fuller, 20 years

I find Muller v. Oregon a case with fewer legal implications than moral. This attitude toward women and feminine labor rights was normal and accepted by many at the time of the hearings, and with this in mind I find it difficult to attribute my contemporary viewpoints with the result of a case that happened in a completely different era. Although controversial and questionably unconstitutional, the outcome of the case was determined in a time before women have the rights and respect they have now. This said, Muller v. Oregon is and should be considered a landmark case. I believe that it was an early catalyst for the women's suffrage movement, and a timeless example of chauvinism and discrimination. I find serious problems in the fact that the Supreme Court jeopardized equality in favor of a strong 'public welfare,' thus leading me to conclude the the United States, even at this time period, was still in its theoretical diapers. We were modern in the industrial sense of the word; we'd surpassed our own beliefs and those of others. Yet, the United States was nowhere close to being the nation our constitution promised. Muller v. Oregon helped us to take those baby steps from diaper to pull-up, and further to the leak-free utopia of equality. **Oh snap! Awesome diaper metaphor!**
 * Personal Opinion of the Case: THIS IS EMMA'S RESPONSE AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THE OPINION OF MY FANTASTIC GROUP MEMBERS **

Had Muller v. Oregon gone the other way, one of the main implications would have been the reactions and standpoints of the feminist movement vs. those more concerned with public welfare. Muller's refusal to pay the fine most likely would've been viewed as anti-maternalist and unfair, even if the Supreme Court voted in concurrence with his argument. There would probably be some dissenting votes as opposed to simply unanimous. Despite this, I don't think that a flipped outcome of the case would've much affected the women's suffrage movement. The movement would still have happened, and women would at last earn their rights--but Muller v. Oregon wouldn't have had as much of an influence or significance.
 * What if this case had gone the other way?: AGAIN AN OPINIONATED QUESTION SO SEE RED TEXT ABOVE **

Works Cited "David Josiah Brewer." //Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"100th Anniversary of Landmark Supreme Court Labor Case - National Consumers League." //Latest News//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." //Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Key Supreme Court Cases: Muller v. Oregon (ABA Division for Public Education)." //American Bar Association//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Muller v. Oregon | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law." //The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law | A Multimedia Archive of the Supreme Court of the United States//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Muller v. Oregon." //LII | LII / Legal Information Institute//. 15 Jan. 1908. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Muller v. Oregon." //Pinzler.com//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Muller v. Oregon (Supreme Court Drama) - ENotes.com." //ENotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More.// Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

"Muller v. Oregon." //Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .

6/7 Biblio - alphabetical 26/28 - Nice analysis, Emma. You looked at it from an historical perspective - hard to do. 4.5/5 Organization -- where did some of the pics come from? Ad?

36.5/40 Total