CASE DIGEST

35 Lochner v. New York

Constitutional Law 2

Prepared by GD Baltazar

Court US Supreme Court

Citation --
Date Argued February 23, 24, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905.
Plaintiff-Appellee Lochner
Accused-Appellants New York
Ponente Justice Peckham
Relevant topic Bill of Rights – Due Process – Substantive Due Process
Relevant Consti or 110th section of Article 8, Chapter 415 of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the
other law provisions State of New York

Section 110. Hours of labor in bakeries and confectionery establishments.—No

employee shall be required or permitted to work in a biscuit, bread or cake bakery or
confectionery establishment more than sixty hours in any one week, or more than ten
hours in any one day, unless for the purpose of making a shorter work day on the last
day of the week; nor more hours in any one week than will make an average of ten hours
per day for the number of days during such week in which such employee shall work.

TLDR version The Act limited the hours bakers were permitted to work no more than 10 hours per day.
Lochner, a bakery owner, was fined twice for overworking an employee under the
statute. The US Supreme Court held that a state may not regulate hours mutually agreed
upon by employers and employees because it violates their 14th Amendment right to
contract under the Due Process Clause.

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:

● The indictment charges that the plaintiff in error violated the 110th section of Article 8, Chapter 415 of the Laws
of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and
permitted an employee working for him to work more than 60 hours in one week.

● Plaintiff in error demurred, arguing that the indictment did not state facts that constitute a crime. Demurrer was
overruled, and the plaintiff pleaded not guilty. He was convicted of misdemeanor, second offense as indicted,
and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to stand committed until paid, not to exceed 50 days in the Oneida
County jail. Appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department was denied. A further
appeal was then taken to the Court of Appeals where the judgment of conviction was again affirmed.

ISSUES, ARGUMENTS FOR or AGAINST:

ISSUE / PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

QUESTION

WON a state YES. NO.

regulating working • The statute in question is not a • The New York statute under
hours of a class of reasonable exercise of the police consideration involves an exercise of
workers violates the power either from the standpoint of the police power of State. The burden
Due Process of the trade itself or from the of demonstrating that this statute is
Law Clause. standpoint of the decisions repugnant to the provisions of the
interpreting the exercise of the Federal Constitution is upon the
police power in connection with the plaintiff in error and he must show that
14th Amendment. there was no basis upon which the
state court could rest its conclusion

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
35 Lochner v. New York
Constitutional Law 2
• Where the ostensible object of an that the legislation in question was a
enactment is to secure the public proper exercise of police power.
comfort, welfare or safety, it must • The power of the legislature to decide
appear to be adopted to that end, it what laws are necessary to secure the
cannot invade the rights of persons public health, safety or welfare is
and property under the guise of the subject to the power of the court to
police regulation, when it is not decide whether an act purporting to
such in fact. promote the public health or safety has
• The statute in question was never such a reasonable connection
intended as a health provision but therewith as to appear upon inspection
was purely a labor law. This is to be adapted to that end.
indicated by the facts leading up to
the adoption of this statute by the
New York Legislature.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND RULING:

ISSUE HELD
WON a state regulating working hours of a class of workers violates the Due YES.
Process of Law Clause.

COMPREHENSIVE OUTLINE OF THE COURT’S ARRIVAL AT DECISIONS AND OTHER RELEVANT

DISCUSSIONS

RIGHT TO CONTRACT

• 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. 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 the Amendment,
unless there are circumstances which exclude the right.

POLICE POWER OF THE STATE

• There are certain powers, existing in the sovereignty of each State in the Union, somewhat vaguely termed
police powers, the exact description and limitation of which have not been attempted by the courts. Those
powers, broadly stated and without, at present, any attempt at a more specific limitation, relate to the safety,
health, morals and general welfare of the public.
• Both property and liberty are held on such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the governing power
of the State in the exercise of those powers, and with such conditions the 14th Amendment was not designed to
interfere.
• The State, therefore, has power to prevent the individual from making certain kinds of contracts, and in regard
to them the Federal Constitution offers no protection. If the contract be one which the State, in the legitimate
exercise of its police power, has the right to prohibit, it is not prevented from prohibiting it by the 14th Amendment.
• It must, of course, be conceded that there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power by the State.
Otherwise, the 14th Amendment would have no efficacy and the legislation of the States would have unbounded
power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was enacted to conserve the morals, the
health or the safety of the people; such legislation would be valid, no matter how absolutely without foundation
the claim might be.

TEST OF VALIDITY OF STATUTE

• In every case where legislation of this character is concerned, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair,
reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the State, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary

Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
35 Lochner v. New York
Constitutional Law 2
and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts in
relation to labor which may seem to hum appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family?

THE STATUTE IS NOT VALID

• A law like the one before us involves neither the safety, the morals nor the welfare of the public, and that the
interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an act. It does not affect any other portion of
the public than those who are engaged in that occupation. Clean and wholesome bread does not depend upon
whether the baker works but ten hours per day or only sixty hours a week. The limitation of the hours of labor
does not come within the police power on that ground.
• It is a question of which of two powers or rights shall prevail – the power of the State to legislate or the right of
the individual to liberty of person and freedom of contract. The mere assertion that the subject relates though
but in a remote degree to the public health does not necessarily render the enactment valid. The act must have
a more direct relation, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an
act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in
his power to contract in relation to his own labor.
• The trade of a baker, in and itself, is not an unhealthy one to that degree which would authorize the legislature
to interfere with the right to labor, and with the right of free contract on the part of the individual, either as
employer or employee. To the common understanding the trade of a baker has never been regarded as an
unhealthy one. There must be more than the mere fact of the possible existence of some small amount of
unhealthiness to warrant legislative interference with liberty.
• It is also urged that it is to the interest of the State that its population should be strong and robust, and therefore
any legislation which may be said to tend to make people health must be valid as health laws, enacted under
the police power. If this be a valid argument and a justification for this kind of legislation, it follows that the
protection of the Federal Constitution from undue interference with liberty of person and freedom of contract is
visionary, whenever the law is sought to be justified as a valid exercise of the police power.
• The act is not, within any fair meaning of the term, a health law, but is an illegal interference with the rights of
individuals, both employers and employees, to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may
think best, or which they may agree upon with the other parties to such contracts.
• Statutes of the nature of that under review, limiting the hours in which grown and intelligent men may labor to
earn their living, are mere meddlesome interferences with the rights of the individual, and they ae not saved
from condemnation by the claim that they are passed in the exercise of police power and upon the subject of
the health of the individual whose rights are interfered with, unless there be some fair ground, reasonable in
and of itself to say that there is material danger to the public health or to the health of the employees, if the
hours of labor are not curtailed.
• It is manifest to us that the limitation of the hours of labor as provided for in this section of the statute under
which the indictment was found, and the plaintiff in error convicted, has no such direct relation to and no such
substantial effect upon the health of the employee, as to justify us in regarding the section as really a health
law.

RULING:

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York as well as that of the Supreme Court and County Court of Oneida
County must be reversed and the case remanded to the County Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.

Harlan, dissenting:

• The right to contract is limited by the state police power and a limitation on employee’s work hours has a direct
relationship on promoting employee health, safety and general welfare. Valid concerns include unclean air in
bakeries and health issues associate with such that are not apparent in other professions. It is also well-
documented that bakers as a class are weaker and die earlier than other workers.

Holmes, dissenting:

• The majority overlooked state regulation across the country and decided this case based on an economic
theory. Precedent and state constitutions permit state laws to regulate the lives of individuals in ways not
supported by the national legislature. The purpose of the Constitution is not to ensure states are exercising their
powers in uniform, but to provide them the power to make their own judgments regarding which laws are best
for their citizens.
Page 3 of 3