LOCHNER V NEW YORK 198 U.S 45 1905 LOCHNER V NEW YORK U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL LABOR/LABOR UNIONS U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION ECONOMY AND LABOR SIGNIFICANCE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT STATES COULD NOT MAKE LAWS THAT SET A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS PEOPLE COULD WORK PER DAY OR PER WEEK PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT CRITICIZED THE RULING COMPLAINING THAT THE COURT WAS ERECTING BARRIERS TO REFORM IN ADDITION HE ARGUED THAT THE RULING WAS A MISUSE OF POWER AND REPRESENTED A MOVE BY THE COURT TO INVOLVE ITSELF WITH CREATING PUBLIC POLICY BACKGROUND IN 1895 THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE PASSED THE BAKESHOP ACT WHICH RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF HOURS A LABORER IN A BAKERY COULD WORK TO 10 PER DAY OR 60 PER WEEK IN 1902 JOSEPH LOCHNER A BAKESHOP OWNER IN UTICA NEW YORK WAS FINED 50 FOR ALLOWING A WORKER TO WORK MORE THAN 60 HOURS IN A WEEK LOCHNER APPEALED THE FINE ARGUING THAT THE LAW WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT LIMITED HIS FREEDOM OF CONTRACT DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON FEBRUARY 23 24 1905 AND DECIDED ON APRIL 17 1905 BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4 JUSTICE RUFUS PECKHAM SPOKE FOR THE COURT JUSTICES JOHN HARLAN AND OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES DISSENTED THE MAJORITY IN THIS CASE REVERSED THE EARLIER COURTS DECISIONS BY REPEALING THE NEW YORK LAW THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT FREEDOM OF CONTRACT WAS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT THAT IT NONETHELESS HAD TO BE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THE COURT RULED THAT IF THE BAKESHOP LAW PROTECTED THE GENERAL WELFARE OF SOCIETY IT WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL HOWEVER THE JUSTICES DID NOT BELIEVE THE CLAIM THAT THE BAKERIES WERE UNHEALTHY AND THAT LIMITING WORKERS HOURS WAS FOR THEIR PROTECTION THE COURT RULED THAT THE NEW YORK LAW VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE STATUTE NECESSARILY INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN WHICH THE LATTER MAY LABOR IN THE BAKERY OF THE EMPLOYER THE GENERAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CONTRACT IN RELATION TO HIS BUSINESS IS PART OF THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROTECTED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION UNDER THAT PROVISION NO STATE CAN DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE OR TO SELL LABOR IS PART OF THE LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT UNLESS THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXCLUDE THE RIGHT TO THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING THE TRADE OF A BAKER HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS AN UNHEALTHY ONE VERY LIKELY PHYSICIANS WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE EXERCISE OF THAT OR OF ANY OTHER TRADE AS A REMEDY FOR ILL HEALTH BUT IT MIGHT BE SAFELY AFFIRMED THAT ALMOST ALL OCCUPATIONS MORE OR LESS AFFECT THE HEALTH THERE MUST BE MORE THAN THE MERE FACT OF THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF SOME SMALL AMOUNT OF UNHEALTHINESS TO WARRANT LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE WITH LIBERTY
