The Legacy of Lochner Ruling in American History and American Legal History - Essay Example

The Legacy of Lochner Ruling in American History and American Legal History Introduction The Legacy of Lochner Ruling in American History and American Legal History The Lochner ruling in 1905 occurred at time when America was undergoing the second phase of industrial revolution(Bernstein, 2005). The ruling was so controversial that it affected many ruling I the decades to follow that it later be referred as the ‘Lochner era’. This was a time that America needed to rejuvenate economically, as it would occur, the economic pressure transpired up to the courts. Two petitions failed Mr. Lochner only to find favor in the face of the Supreme Court of America at the state of New York court hence the name ‘New York vsLochner’case (Bernstein, 2005). The magnitude of this case was clear from the onset as the burden of proof was left in the hands of top government legal practitioners. No greater expectation was put on the side of the petitioner, Mr. Lochner, whom many thought, would lose. The case was about the working environments in the bakeries and Mr. Lochnerhad been fined by the court for extending the working hours for his employee thereby bridging the rules stipulated by the state. The working hours in the bakeries were to be not more than 10 hour a day averaging to about 60 hours a week (Bernstein, 2005). However, Mr. Lochner argued his case based on individual contract and that the state policing power had no rights in interfering in such private issues. The Supreme Court ruling on this case would spark serious indifference that would be felt over a long period (Bernstein, 2005). The Court Ruling The sitting judges of the Supreme Court at that time lead by Justice Peckam who declared their decision voting 5-4 in support of the case (Bernstein, 2005). They argued that the contracts in the bakery were a matter that would be derived from the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment stipulated that "All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring and possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Bernstein, 2005)." The ruling cited supported the ruling by arguing that the state had no right in how an individual entered into a contract. This was in reference to a previous case in 1897 between Allgeryer and Louisiana in which the liberty of contract clause was due applied (Bernstein, 2005). This was mainly geared to put off the foreign investors from the competition with the already bakeshops in the state. Their decision would later be termed as judicial activism in favor of individual interest and the supporting economic liberty while depriving the due legal process (Bernstein, 2005). Such a ruling would not go without any dissent from those upheld the rule of law. Fierce dissention came from all quarters, ranging from state to legal and scholarly spheres. In the sitting judges, conspicuous and unforgettable dissention would come from Justice Holme and Justice Harlan. Holme’s dissentwas derived from the fact that this ruling was in favor of the laissez faire trading. He argued that the Fourth Amendment was against this idea of liberty in contract and that the court had ruled in favor in some of the previous sessions. For instance, the contract on trading on Sunday had previous been abolished establishing the facts from the Fourth Amendment (Bernstein, 2005). Justice Harlan alternatively describes the ruling as unconstitutional(Bernstein, 2005).He argued that little conceptualization was given to the state respondents who were to prove whether the case was unconstitutional or not. According to Harlan, it was the duty of therespondent, which, in this case is the government of the United States of America to prove that the liberty of contract was unconstitutional (Bernstein, 2005). This was contrary to what was witnessed as the court decided to scrap away the legal arguments of the state attorney and in turn perform a duty that is out of their jurisdiction. In addition, he also tried to evaluate his dissent from the point of view that the conditions at the bakery would be fatal to the people. The court ruling however encountered this by quoting from current research at that time, showing that the deaths related to the bakery was almost equal to death cases witnessed in other sectors (Bernstein, 2005). He felt that the decision by the court was not one of the best, though they should have still followed the constitution. Impact of the Ruling to Other Cases Irrespective of the glaring dissent from these learned scholars, the ruling would in the preceding three decades influence positively other cases of similar background. Many of the labor related petitions were turned down. The working hours for women were reduced, the working hour for the state organizations reduced, and labor among children abolished (Bernstein, 2005). The decisions were severe especially to the federal government that the Congress decided to debate on the court’s decision to change their stand on refusal to uphold the constitution. This was around 1917 when everybody thought that this trend would stop at last, only to continue for the next decade (Bernstein, 2005). Many of these cases occurred between the year 1905 to 1937 when the case between West Coast Hotel Company and Parrish bowed to the pressure from the then President Roosevelt on threats of court expansion (Bernstein, 2005). The judicial bill passed in 1937 was claimed to be set with a reason that older judges had a lot of workload that they could not handle alone. Therefore, Congress saw a need that they could recruit more of the sitting judges. The real reason for this decision however, was that the new bench would help control the unconstitutional ruling prominent in the courts at that time. Some of the cases included the case between Adair the U.S that seek to stop the workers from joining the trade unions in 1908 (Bernstein, 2005). They went ahead to abolish the federal law in 1918 still basing their argument form the Lochnerian rule. This was in a case Hammer and Dagenhart irrespective of the early expansion tricks from the government to try to stop them (Bernstein, 2005). The next case that acted as a big blow to the federal laws came in 1923 and this was between Adkins and the children hospital. The case ruled to repeal the previous bill by the government to control the wage levels for women and children in the state of Colombia (Bernstein, 2005). To break the federal statutes further they again, they invalidated the federal government taxing powers in the Agricultural Act. This case between United States and Butler and the case between Carter and Carter Coal Company in the same year of 1936 could not be tolerated any further by the government hence their drastic action in 1937 (Bernstein, 2005). The Carter case also went against the federal law allowing them to control the coal industries. Conclusion Most liberalist criticized the Luchnerian era as being the period of judicial activism. A point in time was noted when chief justice penned down their sentiment toward federal governments’ efforts to thwart their actions. Many scholars did not prove of it as well including some the federal attorneys at the time. In fact, some even wanted the clause in the Fourth Amendment to be review to help save the situation. Due to its unfamiliarity among the people, the ruling was destined to end at this time and never to reoccur again. At the same time people had changed to the new postmortem deal that was offered by the government. However, some of its supporters tried to resurface it to no avail. The state had succeeded in recruiting new judges that did not show any compliance to the ruling (Bernstein, 2005). Reference Bernstein, D. (2005). Lochner v. New York: A Centennial Perspective. Washington University Law Quarterly, 1469-1528. Read More