Lochner & Substantive Due Process Lochner Era: Definition: Several controversial decisions invalidating federal and state statutes that sought to regulate working conditions during the progressive era and the great depression. Lochner v NY (5:4) established that liberty of contract despite no textual reference was implicit in the due process clause of the 14 th amendment which provides: o nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The law which was struck down attempted to limit the number of hours a baker could work to 10 hours and the max a week to 60 o Legislative purpose: to protect the health of bakers o Held: unreasonable and unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty to contract (This was not language of deference to an elected majority The Lochner period ended with West Coast Hotel v Parish in which the SC took an expansive view of the government s power to regulate commercial activities. Muller v. Oregon The case justifies both sexual discrimination and the usage of labour laws during the Lochner era (The exception to the rule during this era of substantive due process encompassing freedom of contract)
Snapshot: State restrictions on the working hours of women upheld on the basis that there was a legitimate state interest in protecting women s health. Distinguished from Lochner on the basis of sex Muller owned a laundry business and violated law by allowing woman to work for longer than 10 hours during one day Held: Governmental interest in public welfare outweighed the freedom of contract (substantive due process interpretation of the 14 th A of the Lochner era) Lochner distinguished on the basis of the difference between the sexes Child bearing physiology and social role of women in propagating the species = public interest Note: Brandeis Brief was very important in the case, establishing statistics to support the contention that longer working hours were detrimental to women s United States v. Carolene Products Co. A federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. o Argued in breach of commerce clause and 5 th amendment due process Held: Applying rational-basis review, the Court held that the law was supported by substantial public-health evidence, and was not arbitrary or irrational. Justice Harlan Stone, writing for the Court, found that the law, being "presumptively constitutional" was essentially a legislative judgment, and hence was not for the courts to
overrule. Applying rational-basis review, the Court held that the law was supported by substantial public-health evidence, and was not arbitrary or irrational. Carolene Products is best known for "Footnote Four," considered to be "the most famous footnote in constitutional law." [2] The Court applied minimal scrutiny (rational basis review) to the economic regulation in this case, but proposed a new level of review for certain other types of cases. The footnote says: Legislation aimed at discrete and insular minorities, who lack the normal protections of the political process, should be an exception to the presumption of constitutionality, and a heightened standard of judicial review should be applied. - What is the rationale for such protection o it is because the democratic process is inherently flawed in that discrete and insular minorities are at risk of majoritarian and hence the justification for judicial deference to the parliamentary sovereignty (and the general will) is less compelling The principles of footnote four: Facial invalidity: There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution i.e. o First 10 amendments (also incorporated through the 14 th ) o Suspect classification A discrete and insular minority are not equally capable of redress through the political process (although they did not determine this) Left it open whether it was the fact that minority was discrete and insular to the extent they could not rely on political process which in itself called for more exacting scrutiny Therefore, Footnote Four outlines a higher level of judicial scrutiny for legislation that met certain conditions:
On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge). Attempts to distort or rig the political process. Discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process. Note* in fact written not by Justice Stone, but by his law clerk, Louis Lusky Adkins v. Children's Hospital Snapshot: federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Overruled by: West Coast Hotel v Parish Congress passed a law setting minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia. Children's Hospital and a female elevator operator at a hotel brought this case to prevent enforcement of the act by Jesse C. Adkins and the two other members of a wage board. Issue: Balancing the police power of Congress to regulate health and safety with the right of individuals to conduct their own affairs without legislative interference Held: Minimum wage artificially restricts the employer s side of the minimum wage
Argued that if congress were permitted to set minimum wage laws they would be permitted to set maximum wage laws Distinguished from maximum hours and also stressed that the difference between men and women (in terms of the law s treatment) was diminishing o 19 th Amendment conferring the right to vote o Argued that other cases were predicated on the perceived difference between the sexes, however: [in] view of the great--not to say revolutionary--changes which have taken place since [Muller], in the contractual, political, and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point. Dissenting: Taft basically called a spade a spade and said that Muller by holding that public interest outweighed the notion of freedom of contract had implicitly overruled Lochner and its lack of deference to the view of AdkiCongress. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish Snapshot: Upheld the constitutionality of Washington minimum wage bill (Overturning Adkins) and with it ended the Lochner era 1905-1937 Parrish, a chambermaid sued a hotel for the difference for what she was owed (she was paid below minimum wage) Held: The Constitution permits the restriction of liberty of contract where such restriction protects the community, health and safety of vulnerable groups (Legitimate state interest)
Associate Justice Roberts switched sides (the switch in time that saved nine) The Commerce Clause (Art 1. S8) Wickard v. Filburn Snapshot: recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. U.S. Government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own private use and had no intention of selling it. Held: United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 was given a broad interpretation The power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States was called into effect because wheat was traded nationally and Filburn's
production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market Issue: Regulating private commerce on the face of it Filburn admitted to producing wheat in excess of the quota, however the excess was produced: o For private consumption o Never entered commerce let alone interstate Was it a proper subject of federal regulation under the commerce clause? Judgment: The purpose of the act was to stabilise the price of wheat on the national market If Filburn has not used his own wheat then he would have purchased on open market. This by itself was a drop in the ocean but as a cumulative principle it would undermine the act. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial. The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce"
Applying rational basis review: the regulation of local production of wheat was rationally related to Congress's goal: to stabilize prices by limiting the total supply of wheat produced and consumed Reasoning: Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce Ramifications: Wickard marked the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court's total deference to Congress' claims of Commerce Clause powers 1942 1990 s maybe to present (see Lopez) See warning by Chief Justice Marshall: the effective restraints on its exercise (commerce power) must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes. Basically free reign until the court were like wholly fuck we need to do something here even though Wickard v Filburn logically jammed open the floodgates hence United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Cannot solely be a matter of demonstrating some possible effect on interstate commerce through an extended chain of logic (Which Wickard was) The danger of setting a principle broader than it needed to be. Essay thesis: - Maybe the notion of a good competing with the other regulated good is a workable touchstone (i.e. private consumption of home grown wheat competing with open market consumption)
As the Court explained in Gonzales v. Raich (2005): "Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial', in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity (activity generally, not the isolated act) would undercut (or compete with) the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity." Heart of Atlanta: What matters is the disruptive effect that racial discrimination has had on commercial intercourse. Congress is not restricted by the fact that the particular obstruction to interstate commerce with which it was dealing was also deemed a moral and social wrong. National league of cities v. Usery: is this a violation of the 10th Am which prohibits Congress from exercising power in a fashion that impairs the states integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system state sovereignty? Garcia v Antonio Metropolitan THE COURT CONFIRMED CONGRESSES POWER TO REGULATE THE WAGE AND HOUR STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT - Whether the the SAMTA may be subjected to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA (same provisions in National league of Cities). - Traditional governmental standards test unworkable
- The standard for 10 th amendments interference with the State as a state (i.e. political shit) Congress has power under commerce clause to extend fair labour standards to government employees Removed traditional government functions test as violating 10 th amendment In Usery the court held that Congress did not have power to regulate the wages and hours of governmental employees performing traditional government functions Principle: the Federalist nature of Constitution and the 10 th Amendment does not necessarily limit the power of the Government to regulate State s employment relations There was no inherent limitation (arising out of federalism) which impinged Congresses right to regulate interstate commerce The concept of Federalism and the 10 th amendment does not prevent the state regulating the State s employment relations (even if employed in Traditional government functions) provided the regulation rationally relates to interstate commerce would come under 2 nd or 3 rd limb of Lopez Dissent: Powell: The State s role in our system of Government is a matter of Constitutional law, not legislative grace CF. LOPEZ there is now a restraint that must have a significant connection to interstate commerce under third limb regulate matters of a commercial chracter