Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Is New York's statute that limited the number of hours a baker could work in a day (10) or in a week (60) violate the 14th Amendment right to due process ("liberty to contract")?

Background.  The State of New York had passed a statute to regulate the working conditions of bakers in the state.  In order to protect the health of the bakers, the State limited the number of hours they could work in a day to 10 and the number of hours they could work in a week to 60.  Lochner, an owner of a bakery, was convicted for overworking an employee.  Lochner appealed his decision.  Lochner argued that the statute violated the 14th Amendment due process clause (substance due process) because it violated Lochner's freedom to contract.  Lochner loss at the trial and on his appeals before New York courts.  The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which overruled New York's Court of Appeals and vacated his conviction.

Court's Analysis.  The U.S. Supreme Court engaged in a balancing act between an individuals 14th Amendment liberty right to contract ("freedom to contract") with the State's power to regulate the public health and safety.  The Court found that the State's act limiting the number of hours a baker could work did not promote the public's health because there is no evidence that the number of hours a baker works is related to the quality of the baker's product and/or the health of the baker.  Bread from a baker who worked 10 hours is just as good as that from one who worked 11 hours.  As for the baker's health, what is the difference if the baker works 11 hours.  The number of hours the State chose to limit the number of hours a baker could work was completely arbitrary.  Since the Court found the law as not related to the State's ability to regulate the public safety and health, it was unconstitutional.

In dissent, Holmes made a good argument that the Constitution did not promote or advocate a particular economic system:

The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. (promoting a libertarian ideology). . .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 faire.

My Analysis.  I see two major themes coming out of the Lochner case.  1.)  Is there a due process right of "freedom to contract"?; and, more importantly, 2.)  Will the Supreme Court look to its own judgment or that of the legislature when determining whether a particular law meets a specified need?

The Court based its "freedom to contract" argument on the belief - which is not reflected in reality - that an employer and employee are on equal footing when negotiating and contracting with respect to labor.  Maybe, New York's statute is to level the playing field between the bakers and their bosses.  Can an individual baker really contract for 10 hours?  Wouldn't an employer just find someone else willing to work longer?  Should the State act a collective bargaining agent?

Moreover, is there a liberty to contract.  Illegal contracts (for illegal services) are not protected.  Since when is the ability to contract a liberty right - what exactly is being constrained?  Personally, I do not even like substantive due process even though it has been the law of the land for over 150 years.

With respect to analyzing the purpose of a law.  Did the Supreme Court basically replace its judgment to that of the New York Legislature when determining whether a law will promote public health and safety.  In Caroline Products, the Court will give more deference to the legislature.  But, how much deference should the Courts give to the legislature?  The Courts just can't take the legislature at its word - then why have judicial review.  But, should 9 members of the Court overrule the general will of the legislature?  It is a tough balancing act.  In this case, it does appear that the Supreme Court ruled the New York law unconstitutional because it did not like it.  It had accepted legislative interference of labor contracts involving women and children.  Isn't the Supreme Court being activist and paternal in this case?

Ultimately, the holding in the case is overruled and the Court gives more deference to legislative regulation of the economy.  Still, what role should the Court play?