Lochner V. New York: Interpreting The Constitution

Lochner v. New York is considered one of the most infamous and controversial cases in US constitutional law. The case involved a New York law, the Bakeshop Act, which limited the number of hours bakers could work in a day and a week. The Supreme Court held that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as it interfered with the freedom of contract. This case sparked debate about the role of government in regulating labour conditions and the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, with critics arguing that it set a precedent for extreme right-wing constitutional theory. The decision has since been overturned, but it continues to be studied and discussed for its impact on constitutional interpretation.

Explore related products

The Constitution Besieged: The Rise & Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence

$15.66 $28.95

We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights

$19.94 $28.95

American Constitutionalism: From Theory to Politics

$52.25 $55

War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority

$28.99 $31

The Supreme Court under Morrison R. Waite, 1874-1888 (Chief Justiceships of the United States Supreme Court)

$54.99 $61.49

Constitutional Protection of Private Property and Freedom of Contract: Liberty, Property, and the Law (Garland Studies in 19th Century American Literature)

$69.99

The Bakeshop Act

In 1899, Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant and owner of a bakery in Utica, New York, was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act by permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. Lochner's case was argued by Henry Weismann, who had previously been a lobbyist for the Journeymen Bakers' Union and was instrumental in passing the Bakeshop Act. Weismann argued that the Act violated the Constitution's protection of the "liberty of contract" and that it was not a legitimate exercise of state police powers. He also denied that the Act was necessary for health reasons, claiming that modern bakeries were well-ventilated and comfortable.

The case, Lochner v. New York, reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the Bakeshop Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court found that the Act unreasonably interfered with the freedom of contract and did not advance any legitimate health or safety objectives. This decision has been widely criticized by legal scholars and is considered one of the most controversial and condemned cases in the Court's history.

Freedom to contract

Lochner v. New York is considered one of the most infamous and controversial cases in US constitutional law. The case involved a New York law, the Bakeshop Act, which limited the number of hours bakers could work in a day and in a week to 10 hours and 60 hours, respectively. The law also included provisions for the sanitary inspection of bakery premises.

Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant and owner of a bakery in Utica, New York, was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act by permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in a week. Lochner's lawyer, Henry Weismann, argued that the Bakeshop Act violated the Constitution's protection of the "liberty of contract", or an employer's right to make a contract with an employee free from government interference. Weismann further asserted that the law was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, which encompasses the freedom to contract.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Weismann's arguments and held that the Bakeshop Act was unconstitutional. The Court found that the law violated the Due Process Clause by unreasonably interfering with the freedom of contract and failing to advance any legitimate health or safety objectives. This decision set a precedent for interpreting the Due Process Clause as providing substantive, rather than just procedural, protections.

The Lochner v. New York decision has been widely criticised by legal scholars and is often used as an example of how judges should not behave. Despite this, the case recognised the right to freely contract as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment, which has had a significant impact on the protection of other rights valued by Americans, such as the right to privacy.

Due process rights

Lochner v. New York is considered one of the most infamous cases in constitutional law. The case involved a New York law, the Bakeshop Act, which limited the number of hours bakers could work in a day and in a week to 60 hours per week and 10 hours per day. The law also regulated sanitary conditions.

The case was brought by Joseph Lochner, a bakery owner in Utica, New York, who was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act by permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. Lochner's lawyer, Henry Weismann, argued that the Bakeshop Act violated the Constitution's protection of the "liberty of contract", or an employer's right to make a contract with an employee free from governmental interference. Weismann argued that the law was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, which protects citizens from being deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law".

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Weismann. In an opinion written by Justice Rufus Peckham, the Court held that the Bakeshop Act was unconstitutional, as it did not constitute a legitimate exercise of state police powers and failed the rational basis test for determining whether government action was constitutional. The Court found that the law did not advance any legitimate health or safety objective and thus unreasonably interfered with the freedom of contract.

The decision in Lochner v. New York has been criticised by legal scholars, with some arguing that it embraced substantive due process, a doctrine that was arguably at odds with the original understanding of the Constitution. The case has also been criticised for its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its impact on the Court's ability to strike down state laws regulating business and industrial conditions. Despite this criticism, the concept of substantive due process survived and remains at the core of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. The case has also been cited as establishing limits on the police power and has been influential in subsequent Supreme Court decisions on privacy rights.

Explore related products

Tribunales débiles, derechos fuertes: Cómo pueden los jueces proteger derechos sin imponerse a la autoridad democrática (Derecho y Política) (Spanish Edition)

$9.99

Fundamental Rights: History of a Constitutional Doctrine

$47.11 $61.99

Binding Promises: The Late 20th-Century Reformation of Contract Law

$65

No Place for Ethics: Judicial Review, Legal Positivism, and the Supreme Court of the United States (The Fairleigh Dickinson University Press Series in Law, Culture, and the Humanities)

$21.7 $35.99

Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$21.95 $29.99

Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System

$34.38 $45

Rational basis test

The rational basis test is a judicial test used to determine whether a government action or law is constitutional. It is a test that has been used by the Supreme Court to evaluate most economic legislation. The rational basis test places the burden of proof on the individual challenging the law, requiring them to prove that the law is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.

In the case of Lochner v. New York, the rational basis test was used to determine whether a New York State statute that limited the working hours of bakers was constitutional. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the right to freedom of contract. The Court found that the law constituted an "unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference" with the freedom of contract and did not advance any legitimate health or safety objective. The Court also noted that baking was not a particularly dangerous profession and that longer working hours did not dramatically affect the health of employees.

Justice Peckham, in his opinion, acknowledged that neither the right to contract nor the state's authority to regulate working conditions was absolute. However, he disagreed with the state's assertion of authority in this case, arguing that the government does not have the power to protect individuals from the consequences of their own poor decisions unless they are wards of the state.

The rational basis test, in this case, was applied to determine whether the Bakeshop Act had a rational basis for regulating the working hours of bakers. The Court found that the Act failed the rational basis test as it was not related to any real health or safety concerns and thus, violated the constitutional right to freedom of contract.

The Lochner v. New York case is considered one of the most controversial and criticized decisions in Supreme Court history. It set a precedent for the rational basis test to become the standard by which courts evaluate most economic legislation, shifting the burden of proof to individuals challenging the law rather than the government.

Police powers

Lochner v. New York is considered one of the most controversial and criticized decisions in Supreme Court history. The case involved a New York law that limited the number of hours bakers could work in a day and in a week to 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week, respectively. This law, known as the Bakeshop Act, was enacted to regulate sanitary and working conditions in New York bakeries.

At the core of this case was the conflict between the individual right to contract and the police powers of the state. Lochner's lawyer, Henry Weismann, argued that the Bakeshop Act violated the Constitution's protection of the "liberty of contract," or an employer's right to make a contract with an employee without government interference. Weismann further asserted that the law was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and that it was not a legitimate exercise of state police powers as it did not concern health or safety.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Weismann's arguments. Justice Rufus Peckham wrote that the Bakeshop Act was not related to the health of employees and thus failed the rational basis test for determining whether government action was constitutional. The Court held that the law violated the Due Process Clause, constituting an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the freedom of contract.

The Lochner decision established limits on the police powers of states, particularly during the Great Depression and the early New Deal era. However, subsequent cases, such as Nebbia v. New York (1934) and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), abandoned the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects freedom of contract. While the concept of substantive due process has survived, the Lochner decision has been criticized by conservative, libertarian, and liberal scholars for its interpretation of the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions