Quick Summary
Joseph Lochner (defendant), a bakery owner in New York, was fined for violating the Bakershop Act by allowing employees to work over ten hours a day. Lochner argued that the law infringed on his liberty of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court held that the Bakershop Act’s restriction was an unconstitutional interference with this liberty.
Facts of the Case
Joseph Lochner owned a bakery in New York and was twice fined under the Bakershop Act for allowing an employee to work more than ten hours a day. Enacted in 1896, this Act aimed to limit bakers’ working hours to promote health and safety. Lochner was charged with violating Section 110 of Article 8, Chapter 415 of the Laws of 1897 by permitting an employee to work more than sixty hours in one week.
The statute stated that no employee should be ‘required or permitted’ to work beyond the specified hours, implying a prohibition on any contractual agreement for longer work hours. Lochner argued that the Act infringed on his liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The defense contended that the Bakershop Act was a legitimate exercise of the state’s police powers intended to protect public health and welfare. New York courts upheld Lochner’s conviction, interpreting the statute as a measure to safeguard bakers’ health. Lochner appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asserting that the statute was an unreasonable and unnecessary interference with his personal liberty and freedom of contract.
Procedural Posture and History
- Lochner challenged his conviction in the Oneida County Court, which upheld the indictment.
- Lochner appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, which also affirmed his conviction.
- Lochner then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, where his conviction was again affirmed.
- Finally, Lochner appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to review the case.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the Bakershop Act’s limitation on bakers’ working hours constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
- The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578)
- The state has police powers to regulate for public safety, health, morals, and general welfare. (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366)
Reasoning and Analysis
The analysis focused on whether limiting bakers’ working hours under the Bakershop Act was a legitimate use of state police powers or an unreasonable intrusion on individual liberty and freedom of contract. While states have broad authority under police powers, such powers have limits and must not be used arbitrarily.
The court distinguished this case from previous ones like Holden v. Hardy, by arguing that baking is not an inherently dangerous or unhealthy occupation that warrants special regulation. Unlike mining or smelting, which pose clear health risks justifying restrictive labor laws, baking does not present such direct threats.
The court held that the law did not have a sufficient relationship to health concerns. Even if some health risks were associated with baking, they were not substantial enough to justify overriding individuals’ rights to contract freely. Economic regulations must show a direct and significant impact on public health or welfare to be valid under the police power.
Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals and held that the Bakershop Act’s restriction on bakers’ working hours was an unconstitutional interference with the liberty of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Dissenting Opinions
Justices Harlan, White, and Day dissented, arguing that states have wide latitude under their police powers to enact laws protecting public health and safety. They contended that such laws should be upheld if enacted in good faith and with a direct connection to these interests.
Key Takeaways
- The general right to make contracts is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- State police powers allow regulation for public health, safety, and welfare but have limits.
- Baking was not deemed an inherently dangerous occupation requiring special regulation.
- Laws must show a significant impact on public health or welfare to justify restricting individual liberties.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a valid exercise of state police powers in regulating contract freedoms?
A valid exercise involves regulations safeguarding public health, safety, or welfare that have substantial relations to the objectives and do not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to address the issue. Regulations should not be arbitrary or discriminatory and should have clear and direct connections to these interests.
- For example: A law requiring construction workers to wear safety helmets on-site is a valid exercise of police powers as it directly relates to worker safety.
How do courts determine if a regulation is an impermissible infringement on the freedom of contract?
Courts assess whether there is a legitimate government interest behind the regulation, whether there is a rational connection between the regulation and this interest, and whether the means used are not overly broad to accomplish the objective. The analysis also considers if the provision regulates an area traditionally subject to state control.
- For example: A city ordinance that bans all street sales of merchandise as a way to address traffic congestion might be too broad if it impedes vendors from selling newspapers or flowers on sidewalks where they do not impede traffic.
References
Was this case brief helpful?