Lochner+v.+New+York



Argued: February 23-24, 1905 Decided: April 17, 1905

**Documents/Amendments to the Constitutional Relevant to the Case**

The documents relevant to the case Lochner V. New York case is the Fourteenth Amendment __and__ the Bakeshop Act. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in __1898__. It __providesd__ citizenship to all persons born or naturalized under the United States of America. Within their __Jurisdictions__, the States are required equal protection under the law to all persons. It's __the__ Due Process Clause has been deemed as extremely controversial. Due Process is a requirement that the State must respect all legal rights owed to a person. The Bakeshop Act was passed in 1895 unanimously by the New York State Legislative. The Act limited the working hours for bakers to ten hours a day and sixty hours a week.

** Case Summary **

The case of Lochner versus New York was a Supreme Court case involving the number of hours a bakers could work each day, and each week. Joseph Lochner, a New York bakeshop owner permitted his employee to work more than 60 hours during a workweek, and was soon convicted and fined. The state said that Lochner had violated the Bakeshop act: an act prohibiting bakers from working more than 60 hours a week, and ten hours a day. Lochner appealed his conviction on the grounds that the law was violating his rights to work under Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see below). He went through two appeals before getting to the Supreme Court: the New York State Court and the Court of Appeals. After both voted against him, Lochner took the issue to the Supreme Court. He didn't find it fair that a worker should be limited to a certain number of hours they could work. What if they worked more than 60 hours because they needed the money? Denying them that would be unjust, Lochner reasoned. Lucky for Joseph, the Supreme Court felt the same way. The Bakeshop Act was not a national law; it was enforced only in certain states, New York being one of them. The Supreme Court felt this law was unreasonable and that the state of New York had overstepped their balance by passing and enforcing this act. They agreed that there shouldn't be limits to how much someone could chose to work (the worker's choice, not the employers) and that it was taking away rights from the people. As a result, the act was overturned (close vote of 5-4). It should also be noted Lochner vs. New York started an era know as the 'Lochner Era', a period in American Legal history in which the Supreme Court cracked down on laws infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights. The Lochner Era is roughly connected to the Second Industrial Revolution.

Interested in the Lochner Era? Check this out: [|Lochner Era Informative Video]

**Chief Justice**

Melville Fuller, born in Maine on February 11, **1883 (was he 22 when the case was decided?)**, was raised by his grandfather, the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court. Growing up, Fuller read law in the office of his uncles, graduated from Bowdion College and attended Harvard for some time. He was married in 1858, Fuller married, but his wife died six years later; he married again in 1866. In the mid 1850s, he moved to Chicago and supported presidential candidate Stephen Douglas in his race against Abraham Lincoln. Fuller practiced law in Chicago and was eventually appointed chief justice of the United States in 1888; he was a well-known lawyer, and was apparently chosen to help Grover Cleveland’s chances of winning the 1888 elections. Despite the fact Fuller was a democrat; he was opposed to efforts to regulate business and property. On July 20th, 1888, Fuller became the eighth Supreme Court Justice and remained so until his death in 1910. **This section should be earlier!**

** Main Issue/ Argument of The Case **

In 1905 the Supreme Court invalidated a New York regulation limiting the hours of labor in bakeries to ten per day or sixty per week. Does the New York law violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?

** Court Decision **

 Ruled in favor of Lochner by finding that the Bakeshop law unconstitutionally restricted an employer's **(employee?)** liberty to contract for labor. The law was overturned.



<span style="display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: center;">** Who Voted What/Dissenting **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">The __supreme-court__ ruled that limiting work hours for bakers did not constitute a legitimate exercise of police powers with a vote of 5-4. The opinion was delivered by Justice Rufus Peckham. He stated that the general right to make contract in relation to business was protected by the Fourteenth amendment. There were two dissents delivered. The first dissent was delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan. He argued that profession of a baker was not an unhealthy one, and even though the __Legislature__ has extreme power, the court cannot interfere even though the the employment may be plainly and palpably unauthorized by law. The second dissent was delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. His dissent, although very short, accused the majority of judicial activism. He argued that the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the liberty of contract.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: center;">** Court Members **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;"> //James Clark McReynolds://served on the Court from October 12, 1914 to his retirement on January 31, 1941. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">//George Sutherland:// he served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court between 1922 and 1938. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Willis Van Devanter:// was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, January 3, 1911 to June 2, 1937. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Pierce Butler:// served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1923 until his death in 1939 <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">//John Marshall Harlan:// Harlan died on October 14, 1911, after 33 years with the Supreme Court <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr://was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court between <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">__902__ to 1932. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">//Edward Douglas White J.:// American politician and jurist, was a United States Senator, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the ninth Chief Justice of the United States.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">**Opinion**

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Personally, we think this was a very important case in the industrial/labor history. Like stated above, the Lochner vs. New York case marked the beginning of an era in which the Supreme Court was in favor of labor laws and helping the working class. The Lochner case brought the unfair, overlooked laws created by States to the eyes of the Supreme Court. We also found it interesting how the case was handled; it was not until Joseph Lochner took the case to the Supreme Court that he received justice. In both the New York state court and the Court of Appeals Lochner was denied getting the conviction reversed.There are parts of this case that we found confusing: why was it so hard for Lochner to receive justice? Lochner was right in pursuing this issue, and his success caused success for numerous other working class people. Also, the Bakeshop Act seemed like an unfair act, as it prevented workers from earning money and limited their freedom, even if it just was in the workplace. Overall, we agree with the court's final decision and are happy with the outcome of the case.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: center;">** Case Reversed **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">If the case had gone the other way, then the Bakeshop law would have been voted constitutional and didn't restrict an employer's liberty to contract labor. The 'Lochner Era' might not have started and cases similar to Lochner's would not have been given the justice they deserved. Workers would be restricted to how much they could work, and it could hurt more than help. Some people worked so much because they needed the money. If they did not have the option, they might have been forced to work a second job, or may have slumped into poverty.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> **Citations**
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">"Lochner v. New York | 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//. 2005. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1904/1904_292>.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">"Lochner v. New York." //Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia//. 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York>.

"Lochner v. New York | 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. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1904/1904_292>.

"Due Process." //Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia//. 11 Feb. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process>.

**6.5/7 - Biblio - alphabetize!** **25/28 Content -- good job.** **4/5 Organization - need to follow the order**

**35/40 Total**