Facts of the Case
The state of New York enacted a statute known as the Bakeshop Act, which forbid bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. 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. While Lochner did not challenge his first conviction, he appealed the second, but was denied in state court. Before the Supreme Court, he argued that the Fourteenth Amendment should have been interpreted to contain the freedom to contract among the rights encompassed by substantive due process.
Questions
Does the Bakeshop Act violate the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
The Court invalidated the New York law. The majority maintained that the statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee. The Court further held that the New York law failed the rational basis test for determining whether government action is constitutional. The majority reasoned that the Bakeshop Act had no rational basis because long working hours did not dramatically undermine the health of employees, and baking is not particularly dangerous. Broadly interpreting state authority to regulate under its police powers, Justice Harlan in his dissent articulated reasoning that would inform later decisions in the post-Lochner era. Rather than requiring the government to prove that a law had a rational basis, he would require the party challenging the law to prove that the test was not met. (This is the current rule.)
Differing Levels of Scrutiny for Economic Regulations: "Anything Goes" Rational Basis v. Rational Basis "With Bite"
Recently, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision striking down a state law that...
"Uncommonly Silly"—and Correctly Decided: The Right and Wrong of Griswold v. Connecticut and Why It Matters Today
It is one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential and controversial decisions, and no one should...
Are Property Rights Protected Under the Constitution?
NLC Convention Panel: Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group
At this year’s National Lawyer’s Convention, the Property and Environmental Law Practice Group is hosting...
NLC: The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate
Since 2008, the Annual Rosenkranz Debate has been the Saturday centerpiece of the National Lawyers...
What Happened to Natural Law in American Jurisprudence?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
A Review of The Decline of Natural Law: How American Lawyers Once Used Natural Law and...
Forum on Judge Bork's Article: "Individual Liberty and the Constitution"
Online Debate
In a recent article in "The American Spectator" Judge Bork set out some thoughts on individual liberty and...
The Federalist Paper, Summer 2019
On March 15–16, the Federalist Society student chapter at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College...
State Court Docket Watch: Ladd v. Real Estate Commission
State Court Docket Watch: 2020 Edition
In Ladd v. Real Estate Commission,[1] the plaintiff Sarah Ladd was an entrepreneur who used...
Liberty Month Revisited: America is Exceptional—For Now
This month we are sharing a selection of paired pieces from The Federalist Society's Liberty...
Book Review: The Right to Try
Engage, Volume 17, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This book review discusses the controversial concept of the constitutional “right...
Does the Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment Protect a Right to Work?
Recent scholarship says yes. At least one federal judge agrees. And soon, we may have an answer from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The story of unenumerated rights is a familiar one. Most law students learn it in...
Lochner v. New York – Does it Still need Rehab? The Longstanding Controversy Over Protecting Liberty via the Fourteenth Amendment
West Palm Beach Marriott Hotel 1001 Okeechobee BoulevardWest Palm Beach, 33401