renouncing a result-oriented decision which was "decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain" and further commenting that "whether [the dissenter] agreed with that theory" was irrelevant to the judicial obligation to enforce otherwise-valid legislation duly enacted by the people's elected representatives
How later courts described this case
- renouncing a result-oriented decision which was "decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain" and further commenting that "whether [the dissenter] agreed with that theory" was irrelevant to the judicial obligation to enforce otherwise-valid legislation duly enacted by the people's elected representatives
- considering New York law limiting the number of hours a baker may work in a single day, purportedly in the interests of health and safety; Supreme Court concluding that legislative interferences into the right and liberty to contract violated due process
- referring to the legislature’s “belief that employers and employees in such establishments were not upon an equal footing, and that the necessities of the latter often compelled them to submit to such exac-tions as unduly taxed their strength”
- holding unconstitutional a New York statute providing that no employee will work in a bakery more than sixty hours in any week or more than ten hours in any day
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled in part by Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421 (1952) — not on the Supreme Court's list
198 U.S. 45, 57 (1905), overruled by Day-Brite Lighting Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421
Reported overruled by Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963) — not on the Supreme Court's list
198 U.S. 45 (1905), overruled by Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726
Reported abrogated by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) — not on the Supreme Court's list
198 U.S. 45 , 25 S. Ct. 539 , 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905), abrogated by W. Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 , 57 S. Ct. 578 , 81 L. Ed. 703
Criticized by Yee v. City of Escondido, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1349 (1990)
) While portions of the Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence have their origins in notions of substantive due process, Hall’s resurrection of a Lochner-type analysis (see Lochner v. New York (1905) 198 U.S. 45 [49 L.Ed. 937, 25 S.Ct. 539]) has been criticized as inconsistent with the modern Court’s deferential view of the nexus between legitimate governmental purposes and chosen legislative means.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Holmes
dissenting.
I rtegret sincerely that I am unable to agree with the judg *75 ment in this case, and that I think it my duty to express my dissent.
This case is decided upon an economic theory which'a large part of the .country does not. entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it. further and long' before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because.I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we as legislators might think as injudicious or if you like as tyrannical as this, and which equally with this interfere with the liberty to contract. Sunday laws and usury laws are ancient examples. A more modern one is the prohibition of lotteries. The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, Is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takés his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics. The other day we sustained the Massachusetts vaccination law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 . United States ana state statutes and decisions cutting down the liberty to contract by way of combination are familiar to this court. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197 . Two years ago we upheld the prohibition of sales of stock on margins or for future delivery in the constitution of California. Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606 . The decision sustaining an eight hour law for miners is still recent. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366 . Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely' to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody, a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez taire. *76 It is made for' people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
General, propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision" will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment.is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that-a rational and fair man’ necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental- principles .as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a firsts instalment of a general regulation of the horns of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequalitv I think it unnecessary to discuss.