Nadramia's AP Eco Blog

Name of Case

Date

Petitioner's Argument

Respondent's Argument

Decision

POGODIOCIPE

D IODOO

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 11

OOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Interstate Commerce

· Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co v. Ilinois, 1886 **************** Background of the Case ****************

In the nineteenth century, as a network of railroads spread across the United States community rights and corporate rights collided. Farmers objected to the high prices rail companies charged to transport their grain, and state legislatures stepped in to regulate the rates charged by railways. Railroad companies had grown wealthy by charging whatever price the market would bear, and they resisted new regulations.

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois originated when the state of Illinois took the Wabash railway company to court for violating state law. Illinois claimed that Wabash had illegally charged one company more than another to carry goods between Illinois and New York. One of the companies shipped its goods a slightly shorter distance than the other but had been charged a higher rate. According to the state, this practice was discriminatory. Because the shipment originated in Illinois, the state argued that the railroad's rates were subject to Illinois law. Wabash argued that because it was transporting freight through several states, Illinois law did not apply.

After a lower court sided with Illinois in the dispute, Wabash appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and lost. Wabash then asked the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.

toonstitutional Issue ********************************

The central issue in Wabash was whether railroad transport fell under the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution. The commerce clause states that only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Previous Supreme Court decisions had given states a great deal of freedom to regulate businesses within their borders. One of these cases was Munn v. Illinois (1876). Munn established the right of states to regulate private industry in order to protect the public from unfair business practices.

Cases such as Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1876) and Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa (1876) essentially allowed state regulation of interstate commerce, provided that Congress had not already acted to regulate it. The Court had ruled that as long as a railway was situated within a state, the state could regulate it. This rule applied even if the state inadvertently regulated interstate commerce as well.

************** The Supreme Court's Decision **************

The court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the Wabash railway company, with Justice Samuel Miller writing for the majority.

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 11 (continued)

les.

The Court reaffirmed that Illinois had the right to regulate commerce that took place solely within state borders. If Illinois applied regulations only to trains traveling within state borders, the law would be constitutional. However, in Wabash the Illinois Supreme Court had also applied the law to commerce between states.

The Court overturned the Illinois law on the grounds that it violated the commerce clause. The Court stated that transport by railway is interstate commerce, which can only be regulated by Congress. In disregarding precedents such as Munn and Peik, the Court argued that these cases had been decided only with an eye toward allowing necessary regulation of business in the public interest. The Court had not intended to use the cases to address the issue of inter state commerce. If each state makes its own laws about railway lines, complying with them all would cause a burden on the railroads.

The Wabash case led Congress to create the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1887. The commission was responsible for federal regulation of interstate commerce.

****************** Disse

******************

Justice Joseph Bradley wrote the dissent in Wabash. Bradley argued that all previous precedents pointed toward the right of states to regulate within their borders. He stated that this right was essential to protecting the public good against corporate interests. Further, Bradley noted that the state of Illinois did not dispute Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. The state was merely stepping in where Congress had failed to act.

Bradley felt that the inconvenience of obeying state laws for railroad companies was exaggerated. However, he stated, if the inconvenience was real, Congress could simply take up the matter of regulation itself.

Case

Questions ********************

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. 1. Why was the Illinois law in Wabash declared unconstitutional?

2. Why is the Wabash case important in history?

3. According to the Court's decision, what would be the result of state regulation of railroads?

4. How was Wabash different from the earlier cases of Munn and Peik? 5. Do you agree ñore with Justice Miller's opinion or Justice Bradley's dissent? Give reasons

for your answer.

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

........

. O

O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Bih

-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 12

Government's Role in Interstate Commerce

United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 1895 **************** Background of the Case ****************

Toward the end of the 19th century, a few large companies came to dominate major industries in the United States. These companies, called “trusts,” tended to reduce competition, which in turn harmed consumers by causing price increases.

To reverse this trend, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890. Its authority was based on Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Act declared "every contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations” to be illegal. Violation of the Act was punishable by fines and imprisonment.

The American Sugar Refining Company was based in New Jersey. In 1892, it purchased the E.C. Knight Company and three similar businesses in Philadelphia. After these purchases, American Sugar Refining produced 98 percent of all refined sugar in the United States. The federal government sued American Sugar Refining and the sugar companies it had acquired, claiming that the purchases were a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. In 1894, the case was argued before the Supreme Court.

tonstitutional Issue *******

le ******************************** The United States government argued that the purchase of sugar refineries was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

"Commerce” refers to the sale, exchange, or purchase of goods, while “manufacturing" refers to the production of a product from raw materials.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was constitutional. Had Congress stepped beyond the limits of its power in regulating interstate trade and commerce?

**************

eme Court's Decision ***************

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the sugar companies by a vote of 8 to 1. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller wrote the Court's opinion.

The Court found that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was indeed constitutional. In addition, Fuller wrote that the American Sugar Refining Company had “acquired nearly complete control of the manufacture of refined sugar within the United States." However, the Court also held that manufacturing or refining sugar did not in itself represent "commerce.” The exchange of goods that makes up commerce is a separate process that follows manufacturing, and is not a direct part of it. Therefore, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not apply to American Sugar Refining Company's purchase of four sugar companies.

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

oooo

ooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 12 (continued)

****************** Disse

******************

Justice John Harlan dissented. He wrote that “while the opinion of the court in this case does not declare the Act of 1890 to be unconstitutional, it defeats the main object for which it was passed.” Harlan asserted that only a “national power” could protect the public from the actions of the trusts. He further stated that that the majority opinion left the public at the mercy of business interests.

Gase

Questions *******************

* **

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. 1. What distinction did the Court's decision make between the government's power to regu

late “manufacturing” and “commerce"?

2. How would the actions of American Sugar Refining and other trusts affect the prices paid

by consumers? Explain your reasoning. 3. How would the Court's decision affect enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? 4. Why did Justice Harlan argue in favor of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? 5. Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in this case? Give reasons for

your answer.

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Date —

Class

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

Supreme Court Case Study 13

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Federal Control of Interstate Commerce

In re Debs, 1895

id of the Case

During the 1890s, there was a nationwide economic depression. Chicago's Pullman Palace Car Company laid off hundreds of employees, and cut the paychecks of those that remained by an average of 25 percent. By May of 1894, tensions between the company and Pullman workers had reached a boiling point. Railway employees, angered by steep pay cuts, went on strike.

They appealed to the American Railway Union (ARU) for support and received it through the ARU's leader, Eugene V. Debs.

On June 26, Debs called for a nationwide boycott of all Pullman railcars. About 50,000 railway workers responded by striking in support of the Pullman employees, which affected railroad traffic nationwide. Since Pullman attached many of its cars to mail trains, the strike also interfered with the delivery of U.S. mail.

Affected railroad companies appealed to the federal government for assistance in stopping the strike. On July 2, a United States Circuit Court ordered an end to the strike. Debs and other leaders from the ARU ignored the order. President Grover Cleveland sent thousands of troops to Chicago to force an end to the strike. The confrontation turned bloody, but the troops broke the strike. Debs and other ARU officials were later convicted of ignoring the court's order. In January of 1895, Debs and the other ARU officials appealed their convictions to the United States Supreme Court.

onstitutional Issue ********************************

In re is a Latin term meaning "in the matter of.” All of the convicted ARU officials were grouped together in the case that Eugene Debs brought before the Court.

In re Debs considered the federal government's rights to regulate commerce between states and its ability to operate the postal service. How far could the government go in order to protect its interests in these matters? Debs and the other petitioners questioned whether the government had the power to order the striking railway employees back to work and whether the government could use force in order to do so.

**************

The

eme Court's Decision **************

The Court ruled unanimously against Debs and the other petitioners. Justice David Brewer wrote for the Court.

Supreme Court cases prior to In re Debs had established Congress's authority over the states regarding interstate commerce. If the Constitution did not allow the states to obstruct interstate commerce, Brewer argued, then unions certainly did not possess the right to do so.

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name -

Date

Class

ROCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 13 (continued)

The federal government, as the lone authority over mail delivery and interstate commerce, was entirely within its rights to stop the Pullman strike and to arrest Debs and the others for ignoring its order. In response to the rioting and violence that had taken place, Justice Brewer wrote that"... no wrong, real or fancied, carries with it legal warrant to invite ... the co operation of a mob, with its accompanying acts of violence.”

In re Debs was a pivotal case for American labor unions. By asserting the federal govern ment's power to halt strikes that threatened interstate commerce, the Court struck a major blow to unions and a union's ability to counterbalance the power of corporations. After the case was decided, the ARU disbanded. Pullman employees were allowed to return to work only if they signed a pledge promising not to join a union. Not until the New Deal legislation in the late 1930's did labor unions begin to gain back some of the power they had lost in the wake of Debs.

de Anada

Questions ***********en moment

della storia

NS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. 1. How was In re Debs a significant case for labor unions in the United States? 2. What reasons did the Court give for upholding the conviction of Eugene V. Debs?

3. Do you agree with the Court's decision in Debs? Give reasons for your opinion.

4. What are some benefits of Congress's broad power to regulate interstate commerce? What

are some drawbacks? 5. How might the Court's position against mob action in Debs be applied to similar situations

in the future?

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date -

Class

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Supreme Court Case Study 14

OPIA

OTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Legality of Segregation by Race

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 **************** Background of the Case ****************

In 1890 Louisiana passed a law ordering railroads in the state to “provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races.” Violations of the law carried a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail. Railway personnel were responsible for assigning seats according to race.

On June 7, 1892, Homer A. Plessy, who was one-eighth African American, decided to test the law's validity by sitting in the white section of a train going from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. When a conductor ordered Plessy to give up his seat, he refused. He was then arrested and imprisoned in a New Orleans jail. He was tried by a New Orleans court and found guilty of having violated the Louisiana law described above. He appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which found the law valid. Plessy then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, claiming his conviction and the Louisiana railroad law were unconstitutional because they violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

sue ******************************** In the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, although slavery had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, African Americans lived in a segregated society, especially in the South. The Fourteenth Amendment banned the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.” Yet laws were passed in southern states that required segregated schools, theaters, parks, buses, and railroad trains. The Plessy case challenged the constitutionality of these so-called Jim Crow practices.

Homer A. Plessy challenged the constitutionality of segregation laws in Louisiana. He based his appeal on the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibited the states from denying "the equal protection of the law” to any person.

**************

Sunreme Court's Decision **************

A majority of the Court denied Plessy's appeal and upheld the practice of segregation as required by the Louisiana law. Justice Henry Brown wrote the majority opinion. First, the ruling brushed aside the relevance to the case of the Thirteenth Amendment. Brown wrote that "a legal distinction between white and colored races ... has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races.”

The rest of the Court's opinion, however, dealt with the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown concluded that this amendment aimed strictly “to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law," but that it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality ..."

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

ooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 14 (continued)

Laws requiring segregation "do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other ....” The majority noted that this was the “underlying fallacy” of Plessy's case. Just as valid under the Fourteenth Amendment would be a similar law enacted by an African American-controlled legislature with respect to whites or other races.

The Court ruled, then, that the matter ultimately depended on whether Louisiana's law was "reasonable.” Segregation laws “have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police powers.” In such matters, a legislature is free to take into account “established usages, customs, and traditions of the people," as well as “the preservation of public peace and good order."

Finally, the Court rejected the notion that “social prejudices may be overcome by legislation.” Brown maintained, “If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them on the same plane."

The Court, in effect, enunciated a doctrine that came to be called the separate-but-equal principle. If African Americans saw this as "a badge of inferiority,” it was solely “because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

****************** Diss

ion

******************

Justice John Marshall Harlan entered a vigorous dissent from the majority's decision. He "regretted that this high tribunal ... has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their rights solely upon the basis of race.” He saw segregation on racial lines as “a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and equality before the law established by the Constitution .... The thin disguise of 'equal accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done.” Harlan saw the Constitution as "color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

The separate-but-equal principle was finally overturned in a series of civil rights decisions of the Court in the 1950s, most notably in Brown v. Board of Education.

GO Anar

Questions ***************

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. 1. Explain how the Supreme Court justified the practice of segregating railroad passengers in

Louisiana by race. 2. What is the meaning of the separate-but-equal principle? 3. On what grounds did Justice Harlan criticize the majority's ruling?

4. Why do you think Plessy based his appeal in part on the Thirteenth Amendment? 5. What do you think was the effect of the Plessy decision on the nation, especially on the

southern states?

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

DROOOOOOOOOODE

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 15

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Extending the Meaning of the Commerce Clause

Northern Securities Company v. United States, 1904

****************

und of the a

ase

****************

In 1890 Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to curb the growing power of monopolies in the United States. The act made it illegal for businesses engaged in interstate commerce to combine for the purpose of reducing or restraining competition. The wording of the act was vague, however, because it did not make clear what the word commerce meant. In an 1895 case involving the E. C. Knight Company, the Supreme Court had ruled that the company had not violated the antitrust law, even though the purchase of four additional refineries gave the com pany almost complete control of the manufacturing of sugar in the United States. For the antitrust law to be effective, it was clear that the Supreme Court would have to interpret the meaning of commerce more broadly.

In 1901 the Northern Securities Company, a holding company, was formed by combining the ownership of two major railroads that served the Northwest, running parallel lines from the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean at Puget Sound. With this monopoly of ownership, consumers and businesses of the Northwest were at the mercy of one company that controlled the freight rates of goods brought into and out of the area.

In 1903 the federal government brought suit against the Northern Securities Company as part of its “trust-busting" campaign. The government charged that the company was a monopoly pursuing restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and demanded that the company be dissolved.

titutional Issue

****

***

********

***************

***

Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce when it enacted the Sherman Antitrust Act?

**************

preme Court's Decision ****************

In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Court held that the Northern Securities Company should be dissolved because the arrangement was an illegal combination in restraint of interstate commerce and thus violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that a combination need not be directly involved in commerce in order to restrain it or to have the potential to restrain it. In this case Harlan found restraint of trade due to suppression of competition resulting from combining competing railroads: “... it is manifest that, if the Antitrust Act is held not to embrace a case such as is now before us, the plain intention of the legislative branch of the Government will be defeated. If Congress has not, by the words used in the act, described this and like cases, it would, we apprehend, be impossible to find words that would describe them.” Harlan rejected the view that the state that charters a corporation should regulate that corporation, saying: “It means nothing less than that Congress, in regulating interstate commerce, must act in subordination to the will of the States when exerting their power to create corporations. No such view can be entertained for a moment."

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 15 (continued)

Harlan also suggested that in this case, “The purpose of the combination was concealed under very general words that gave no clue whatever to the real purpose of those who brought about the organization of the Securities Company. If the certificate of the incorporation of the company had expressly stated the object of the company was to destroy competition between competing, parallel lines of interstate carriers, all would have seen, at the outset, that the scheme was in hostility to the national authority, and that there was a purpose to violate or evade the act of Congress.”

Justice David Brewer agreed only with Harlan's conclusion. He wrote a concurring opinion in which he held that the Antitrust Act should apply only to unreasonable restraints of trade and that in this case such restraint was unreasonable.

****************** Dissenting Opinion ******************

The dissenting justices maintained that the holding company might have diminished competition in the railroad industry, but that did not make it a “restraint of trade.” The dissenting justices thought the majority gave too broad a reading to the statute.

de Anaja

VSI

Questions ************

*****

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper.

1. In what way did the Court broaden the meaning of the word commerce in the Northern

Securities case? 2. On which issues did Justice Brewer agree and disagree with Justice Harlan? 3. The Northern Securities Company owned railroads that operated in several states. What role

did this fact play in deciding whether the Sherman Antitrust Act applied to the company? 4. Why do you think there was disagreement among the justices who were in the majority? 5. How would you describe the importance of the decision in the Northern Securities case?

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOO._-.OOOO._-.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

SOYA

Supreme Court Case Study 16

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC

OOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOO

Liberty and the Right to Work

Lochner v. New York, 1905

***********

*****

ase

***

******

*****

Joseph Lochner owned a small bakery in Utica, New York. In 1905, the state of New York passed what became known as the Bakeshop Act. This law prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours a day, or 60 hours in one week. The New York law was designed to improve working conditions and protect the health and safety of bakery workers. Lochner was charged twice with violating the law by requiring an employee, Frank Couverette, to work more than 60 hours in a given week. Lochner paid a $20 fine for his first conviction. Upon a

second conviction, for which he drew a fine of $50, Lochner decided to appeal.

After the New York appellate courts upheld the law, Lochner appealed his conviction. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1905. The law prevented Lochner from making contracts with his employees for more than 60 hours of work per week. For this reason, he argued that the Bakeshop Act violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to the due process of law.

nstitutional Issue

***************

****

**********

****

The matter before the Supreme Court was whether the Bakeshop Act overstepped the boundaries of the state's “police power.” Did the law violate an employer's right to make contracts, or did the law properly protect the health and safety of bakery workers?

************** The Supreme Court's Decision **************

The Supreme Court's decision was split 5–4. The Court narrowly sided with Joseph Lochner, agreeing that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated. Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the majority decision. He explained that the Court believed the New York statute"... interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employees concerning the number of hours in which the latter may labor in the bakery of the employer." The Court held that the right to make business contracts is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Justice Peckham wrote that although the bakery industry was not the healthiest of trades, the Court did not deem it unhealthy enough to allow the State to legislate the work habits and hours of its workers. In other words, the liberty of bakery workers to contract for work freely outweighed the state's interest in limiting how many hours they could work.

Lochner was one of several decisions in this period in which the Court struck down worker protection laws due to violations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date __

Class

o-o-

ooo

o oooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 16 (continued)

******************

Disse

****** ************

There were two dissenting opinions. Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr., wrote the first dissent. Justice Holmes declared that the majority of the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was incorrect. The Amendment did not support either a protective principle or "the laissez-faire economic theory” that business and industry should operate with minimum interference by government. Holmes argued that the Court had upheld similar state laws in the case of Holden v. Hardy (1898), which upheld the law enacting an eight-hour day for miners. Justice Holmes wrote that the case of Lochner was no different than Hardy.

Justice John M. Harlan wrote the second dissent, with two other justices concurring. Justice Harlan took issue with the Court's opinion that baking was a relatively healthy profession. Harlan concluded that baking was an unhealthy profession, citing the long hours and the lack of ventilation, forcing bakers to breathe flour-dusted air. Therefore, the state had a right to protect workers by limiting their working hours.

se Ana,

LYST

Questions *

eting

recente

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper.

1. On what grounds did Joseph Lochner appeal his second conviction? 2. What was the purpose of the Bakeshop Act? 3. On what grounds did the Court overturn the Bakeshop Act? 4. What was Justice Harlan's reasoning for his dissent? 5. How could the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause be applied to other worker

protection laws? Give reasons for your answer.

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name -

Date

Class

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOI DIECIPITOISDODEPO

DIDO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 1 Women in the Workplace

Muller v. Oregon, 1908 **************** Background of the Case ****************

The Progressive Era was a period of labor reform that lasted roughly from 1890 to the end of World War I in 1918. Many of the state and federal laws that control employment and work ing conditions have their roots in this period.

In 1903, the state of Oregon passed a law limiting women's work to no more than ten hours per day in factories or laundries. In 1905, a suit was filed against Curt Muller, the owner of the Grand Laundry in Portland, under this Oregon law. The state charged that Mr. Muller had required Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than ten hours on September 4, 1905. Muller was found guilty and fined $10. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, which affirmed the conviction. Muller then appealed the case to United States Supreme Court.

toonstitutional Issue ********************************

Muller appealed his conviction on the grounds that the Oregon law interfered with his right to make contracts with his workers under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Muller's argument rested on Lochner v. New York (1905), a case that involved male bakery workers. In Lochner, the Supreme Court had struck down a New York law that limited bakers to a ten-hour workday. Muller argued that women workers were entitled to equal protection, and had the same rights to make contracts as men.

The Supreme Court had ruled in Lochner that the New York law did not relate to worker health and safety and improperly interfered with workers' rights to work. However, it did leave open the door for state legislation, in cases where health concerns existed.

Attorney Louis D. Brandeis, who eventually became a Supreme Court justice, was chosen to defend the state law. He presented what became known as the “Brandeis brief,” using scientific data to argue the need for labor legislation. It was unusual in that it contained only two pages of legal references, and many pages of sociological statistics from different sources. It became a model for later legal documents dealing with social issues. Thus, the Muller case became a major test of the constitutionality of progressive “social” legislation relating to working conditions.

************** The Supreme Court's Decision **************

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the Oregon law and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon. Justice David Josiah Brewer wrote the opinion for the Court.

Brewer referred directly to the Lochner case, 'saying that the New York law.was an arbitrary interference with laborers' right to make contracts. However, Brewer wrote, “This assumes that the difference between the sexes does not justify a different rule respecting a restriction of the hours of labor."

(continued)

Supreme Court Case Studies

Name

Date

Class

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Supreme Court Case Study 17 (continued)

Justice Brewer indicated that it was well established that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of laborers to make contracts. He argued that it is equally true that this right is “not absolute.” The state may limit an individual's contractual rights without coming into direct conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court relied heavily on the “Brandeis brief” in formulating its decision. Justice Brewer stated, “That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious ... [Because of this] she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained ..."

The Court's view was that female workers, due to their ability to bear children, merited protection by the government. It ruled that this protection did not improperly interfere with Fourteenth Amendment rights—especially when a woman's health was at stake.

case A.

Questions **********************

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. 1. Why did Curt Muller claim the Oregon labor law was unconstitutional? 2. What evidence convinced the Supreme Court to affirm the decision of the Oregon

Supreme Court? 3. How does the Court's decision in Muller differ from its decision in Lochner? 4. Why is Muller v. Oregon historically important? 5. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Muller? Give reasons for your answer.

Supreme Court Case Studies

Nadramia's AP Eco Blog

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

US History Cases

Welcome to Nadramia's AP Eco Blog

WSJ.com: Politics And Policy

NYT > Home Page

Blog Archive

About Me

Mr. Nadramia's Economics Followers....well followers of the blog at least1

Eco Links