Lochner v. New York: Opening Pandora's Box | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU

How could expanding workers’ rights trigger a Pandora’s box of legal activism? Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, breaks down Lochner v. New York (1905)—the landmark Supreme Court case on labor laws and constitutional liberty that sparked a national debate over the limits of government power, individual rights, and judicial activism. Discover why this century-old decision still fuels controversy in America’s legal and political system today.

📲 Watch our content adfree on our app

Donate to PragerU

Follow PragerU:

Instagram ➡️ ()

Facebook ➡️ ()

TikTok ➡️ ()

Transcript:

Lochner v. New York: Opening Pandora's Box

Presented by Robert George

It’s the job of the Supreme Court to interpret and apply the Constitution to the cases before it. It’s not the job of the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution.

That’s the lesson of Lochner v. New York in 1905, one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in American history.

Joseph Lochner owned a bakery in Utica, New York. Like many bakeries at the turn of the 20th century, his shop was in the basement of a tenement. Workers toiled for long hours in hot, often unsanitary conditions, near ovens and other dangerous equipment.

To protect bakery workers, the state of New York enacted a reform law in 1895. In addition to enforcing new standards of cleanliness, the law — which passed the legislature unanimously — limited the time an employee could work in a bakery to 60 hours a week.

Mr. Lochner, however, wanted his employees to work more than 60 hours, and he found workers who would take the jobs he offered on those terms.

From Lochner’s perspective, New York was violating his—and his workers’—right to agree to terms of employment acceptable to both sides.

New York argued that as a state it possessed what the law calls “police powers” to protect public health, safety, and morals. Its legislation was designed to protect workers’ health and safety and prevent their being exploited.

Mr. Lochner was convicted in a state trial court and fined $50. He brought an appeal and lost. He appealed again and lost again. Finally, he took his case to the Supreme Court of the United States. In April 1905, the justices decided 5-4 in his favor, invalidating the New York law.

Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the majority opinion. He based his argument on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which declares that “No state shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”

Here’s where it gets interesting, if a bit complicated.

The Court held that there are two kinds of due process: procedural due process and substantive due process.

Procedural due process is the one we are all familiar with: the government can’t deprive you of your life, your liberty, or your property without giving you a fair trial. They can’t simply imprison you indefinitely because they don’t like you or even because they caught you committing a crime. You are entitled to certain procedures—due process.

Substantive due process means there are certain inherent but unwritten rights, like — according to Justice Peckham — freedom of contract that the government (in this case the state of New York) cannot take away. They are substantive, not procedural.

The majority in the Lochner case contended that the New York law had violated Lochner’s substantive due process rights. There was no reason for the state to interfere with Lochner’s decision to require a certain number of work hours, and Lochner’s employees’ willingness to work those hours.

The Court conceded that states have police powers to restrict or forbid certain contracts, but only if they could prove those contracts endangered public health, safety, and morals.

They rejected New York’s claim that working more than 60 hours presented such a risk.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting, dismissed these arguments as dangerous nonsense.

Why were they nonsense, and why were they dangerous?

They were nonsense, Holmes contended, because the majority had made them up out of whole cloth. Neither “freedom of contract” nor “substantive” due process are mentioned in the Constitution.

Holmes asserted that the majority wanted a certain outcome and then fabricated a novel legal theory to justify it.

That’s why the decision was dangerous. Under that kind of thinking, the Court could displace laws legitimately enacted simply by asserting that they violated unwritten rights allegedly guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court was, in effect, legislating from the bench.

...access the full transcript here 👉