Case Briefs

Case Briefs

Case Briefs

LOCHNER V. NEWYORK

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was sign point case of Supreme court of United States which is related to the issue that the right of freedom of contract was inherent in the due process clause of fourteenth Amendment (Mason & Stephenson, 2012).

Issue

The case is concerned with the law that restricts the number of working hours of a baker each week. The Supreme Court did not accept the argument that legislation was required for the protection of health of bakers, claiming it an unjust, needless and illogical intrusion with the right and freedom of an individual for hiring (Fallon, 2004).

Facts

Lochner case was the controversial judgment of the history of Supreme Court, starting with the Lochner era. During this era federal state results were invalidated by the Supreme Court for improving the working conditions in the time of progressive era, in order to jump to start the economy in recession (Mason & Stephenson, 2012).

Reasoning Analysis

A usual denigration of the judgment is that the Supreme Court lined interpretation of constitution, favoring the personal ideology, in favor or owning the personal rights. The Supreme Court supported the economic laws; however, the court passed many controversial laws which invalidated those economic laws. The due process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment was used by the court in order to protect personnel rights, which include freedom of rights, freedom of expression and the right to educate a child in private school (Fisher, 1990).

Procedural History

A law prohibiting individuals to work in bakeries more than ten hours a day or sixty hours per week was signed by the New York Legislature commonly, in 1896. The Court of Law fined Joseph Lochner, the owner of Lochner's home bakery in Utica, for $25 per load on a worker, in 1899. On second offense he was fined for $50 in 1901. Lochner decided to file the case for appeal his second assurance. On the other hand, the second assurance was supported by the vote of 3-2 in the Appellate Department of New York Supreme Court. He once again filed an appeal in the US court of Law and lost the appeal by 4-3 vote. After this loss he filed his case in Supreme Court of America (Fallon, 2004).

He based his appeal on fourteenth amendment in the constitution of US. In the chains of cases, the Supreme Court lined that the clause of due process is not just a guarantee of procedure; however, it is a substantive restriction on the control exerted by government on individuals. Even though this understanding of the clause of due process is an issue of controversy but it has strongly rooted in US jurisprudence in 19th century (Choper, 2007).

The argument that the clause of due process acts as protection of the rights to contract for 7 years, was accepted by the Supreme Court of United States. On the other hand, the court of law identified that the right is incomplete; however, it is subjected to the power of police of ...