Lochner v. New York: Judicial Activism and Economic Rights

Introduction: The Lochner Case and Judicial Overreach

The 1905 Supreme Court case Lochner v. New York stands as one of the most glaring examples of judicial misuse of power. In the case, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a New York law that placed a ceiling on the number of hours a baker could work in a day and in a week. The Bakeshop Act, unanimously passed by the New York Legislature in 1896, prohibited persons from working in bakeries for more than ten hours in one day or sixty hours in one week. On two occasions, Joseph Lochner, a Utica bakery owner, was fined for overworking an employee. Lochner decided to appeal his second fine (Paul).

The Appellate Department of the New York Supreme Court ruled against Lochner in his appeal. The conviction was upheld, but Lochner continued to fight. He next took his case to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state. He lost this appeal by a margin of 4–3. Lochner subsequently took his case to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was overturned and the law informing his conviction was ruled unconstitutional (Paul).

It is easy to get lost in the legal ramifications of this case, but the fact is that it began with real stories about real people who were experiencing difficulties in the baking industry. The New York Legislature did not haphazardly pass a random law for the mere sake of exercising its lawmaking authority. In fact, it was attempting to serve its constituency in a thoughtful and responsible manner. It appears that the majority of the Supreme Court did not consider this fact when making their decision — which is precisely why the ruling has remained so controversial over the years and is considered a clear example of judicial misuse of power.

The Bakeshop Act and Working Conditions in Late Nineteenth-Century Bakeries

As the turn of the century approached, it was not uncommon for bakers to work over 100 hours per week. Beyond the long hours, one must also consider the working conditions themselves. Bakeries of the time were frequently located in cellars of tenement houses — damp spaces subject to severe extremes of both heat and cold. Combined with prolonged exposure to flour dust, the conditions of late nineteenth-century bakeries were far from sanitary. Regardless of the trade, unsanitary working conditions have a harmful effect on the health of workers. This reality was the primary impetus behind the passage of several laws directed at regulating sanitary conditions, reforming working conditions, and reducing the hours of labor (Paul).

Journalist Edward Marshall noticed the squalor of New York City's cellar bakeries while serving on the Tenement House Committee in 1894. He wrote an editorial in the New York Press that launched a crusade to clean up the baking industry and improve employment conditions. He convinced his fellow reformers that the problems of the baking industry and general social reform were inextricably interconnected. Henry Weismann, leader of the Bakers' Union, took the opportunity Marshall created and secured his union's backing for the proposed reform law. Together, Weismann and Marshall pushed bakeshop regulation through the state legislature, resulting in the unanimous passage of the Bakeshop Act by both houses of the New York State Legislature in 1895 (Paul).

The Supreme Court's Majority Opinion and Justice Peckham's Reasoning

Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the opinion of the Court on behalf of the majority. Lochner used his Constitutionally guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment right to life, liberty, or property as his defense, claiming that the Bakeshop Act denied him these rights without due process of law. Siding with Lochner, Justice Peckham wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment protected a person's general right to make a contract in relation to his business. He referenced the "police powers" of the state, but spoke of them critically, noting that such powers were not clearly defined. Furthermore, Justice Peckham held that state police powers were subject to limitations; otherwise, states would be able to pass any law whatsoever under the guise of police power as justification (Paul).

Perhaps most importantly, Justice Peckham argued against the position of the Attorney General of New York, who had written that the government had a right to protect citizens against their own lack of knowledge. Justice Peckham refuted this claim by arguing that bakers are not wards of the state — they can protect their own rights and care for themselves without legislative assistance. Peckham also claimed that the trade of a baker is not intrinsically unhealthy. Unlike mining, the work of a baker, according to Justice Peckham, does not hold a natural danger. In 1898, the Court had upheld a ruling limiting the workday for workers in mines and smelters to an eight-hour maximum; the danger of mining and smelting is obvious, but Peckham argued this was not the case for bakers. Based on these arguments, five of the nine Supreme Court justices held that the New York Bakeshop Act was not a valid exercise of the state's police powers (Paul).

Conclusion: Controversy and Legacy

The Supreme Court case of Joseph Lochner stands as one of the more controversial decisions in the history of the United States. Although the decision effectively allowing employers to set their own standards for working conditions has since been overturned, the question of whether courts always operate within the limits of the law and the Constitution has never been fully resolved.