Lochner era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lochner era is a period in American legal history from roughly 1890 to 1937 in which the United States Supreme Court tended to strike down economic regulations mandating certain working conditions or wages, or limiting working hours. In the eponymous 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, the Court struck down a New York State law limiting the number of hours bakers could work on the grounds that it violated bakers' "right to contract," a right implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This doctrine, known as Economic Substantive Due Process, defined the Court during the Lochner era.

Other representative cases include Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), where the court struck down legislation outlawing child labor in factories where children under 14 worked; as well as Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), where the court struck down federal legislation that mandated a minimum wage level for women in the District of Columbia. See also Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. where the court invalidated a tax on interstate commerce by employers hiring children.

The era is considered to have ended with the overturning of Adkins v. Children's Hospital in the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.

Since that period the Lochner era is considered by both liberals and conservatives alike to be a regrettable period in U.S. jurisprudence, each for different reasons. Liberals consider it a shameful time for workers' rights while conservatives cite it as an example of inappropriate judicial activism.[citation needed]

However, many libertarians view Lochner and its progeny as laudable cases for their recognition of individual liberty.[citation needed] They see it not as judicial activism but as the proper exercise of judicial review, striking down laws that are unconstitutional under the fifth and/or fourteenth amendments. Supporters of Lochner maintain that the shift in economic circumstances that brought about its demise do not change the meaning of the Constitution.[1]

One prominent supporter of Lochner is Janice Rogers Brown, currently a judge in United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[2] Due to her controversial views, her nomination by President George W. Bush had almost confronted a filibuster, but eventually the Gang of 14 reached a compromise and Brown was confirmed.

It should be also noted that the two early cases that use Substantive Due Process to protect civil liberties, Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska, were decided during the Lochner era.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (Dissent), 300 U.S. 379, No. 293 (U.S. Supreme Court 1937-03-29).
  2. ^ Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court’s discredited decision in Lochner v. New York

[edit] References

  • Bernstein, David E. "Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism." Georgetown Law Journal. November 2003.
  • Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. Paperback ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0195120434
  • Gillman, Howard. The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence. New ed. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993. ISBN 0822316420
  • Sunstein, Cass R. "Lochner's Legacy." Columbia Law Review. 87:873 (June 1987).