IX. Economic Substantive Due Process PDF

Preview

Summary

Taught by Corey Brettschneider ...

Description

POLS1010: Topics in American Constitutional Law 4/1/19 Class question: What is the difference between Lochner vs. New York and Griswold v. Connecticut? ● Both involve rights deriving from the 5th and 14th amendment ● In Griswold, the court decided that various protections in the constitution allow for zones of privacy in which the federal government cannot interfere… the right to privacy in a marriage ● In Locher, the right to contract provided for in the 5th and 14th amendment was conflated with liberty I.

II.

Economic Substantive Due Process A. Substantive due process - principle allowing courts to protect certain fundamental (enumerated) rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the US Constitution. 1. From the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments (prohibit the federal and state governments from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law B. Lochner Era - SCOTUS struck down economic regulations by using its interpretation of substantive due process. Important because era was defined by constitutional protection for economic liberty. 1. strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights through substantive due process 2. Begins with Lochner v. New York (decided that NY law that limited the hours a baker could work violated the economic rights of workers and owners to make contracts as they wished) and ends with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish 3. Judges saw the right to private property as core to the Constitution's meaning like John Locke who is a “property libertarian” 4. Lochner Era SCOTUS struck down a number of economic regulations based on the doctrine of substantive due process. Limited the ability of states to use their police powers in a way that limited individual liberties such as a right to contract. a) Used substantive due process to strike down minimum wage laws and contracts that forbade employees from joining labor unions Lochner v. New York, 1905 A. Facts of the case - New York statute (Bakeshop Act) forbade bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. Lochner was accused of permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. Before the Supreme Court,

he argued that the Fourteenth Amendment should have been interpreted to contain the freedom to contract among the rights encompassed by substantive due process. B. Legal issue - Does the Bakeshop Act violate the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 1. Core question concerns conflict between the individual right to contract and the police powers of the state. a) “Is this a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts for the support of himself and his family?” C. Holding - Yes D. Reasoning - Justice Peckham wrote majority decision saying that statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee 1. NY law failed the rational basis test for determining whether government action is constitutional...Bakeshop Act had no rational basis because long working hours did not dramatically undermine the health of employees or the general public, and baking is not particularly dangerous a) No reasonable grounds for interfering with the liberty of a person or the right of free contract by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker 2. This law was purely labor law, no reference to question of health and doesn’t involve safety, morals, or general public welfare, nor does it involve the public interest…. Therefore, the limitation of hours of labor doesn’t fall under state’s police powers. a) Because property and liberty are reasonable conditions under which police powers can be used, the state has power to prevent individuals from making certain kinds of contracts… BUT there is a limit, and NY statute exceeds the limit because it was not enacted to serve the moral or the health and safety of the people. 3. Distinction between bakeshop act and other labor laws because there's no need to safeguard public health in the baking industry (which is different than mining, for example). a) Baking industry isn’t inherently unhealthy III.

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 1923 A. Facts of the case - Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. D.C.’s Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, challenged the law.

1. The law was designed to protect women and children’s health and morals a) "from conditions detrimental to their health and morals, resulting from wages which are inadequate to maintain decent standards of living." 2. Children's Hospital and a female elevator operator at a hotel brought the case to prevent enforcement of the act by Jesse C. Adkins and the two other members of a wage board. B. Legal issue - Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Does a law establishing minimum wage for women unconstitutionally interfere with the right to freedom of contract? 1. Core question concerns balancing the police power of Congress to regulate working and living conditions vs. the right of individuals to conduct their own affairs without legislative interference. C. Holding - Yes D. Reasoning - Justice Sutherland wrote the majority opinion striking down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional. The Court relied on Lochner v. New York which protected a right of “freedom to contract” through the due process clause. Court found that this extends to minimum wage laws as well. Employers and employees have a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased (law abridges their ability to freely contract labor). So the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract. 1.

"The statute now under consideration is attacked upon the ground that it authorizes an unconstitutional interference with the freedom of contract included within the guaranties of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. That the right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual protected by this clause is settled by the decisions of this court and is no longer open to question.” - Sutherland

2. Sutherland said the law was "an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land. a) Law was "arbitrary," because it imposed uniform minimum wages on all women regardless of their individual needs or occupations. There was no connection between the minimum wage, the employer’s business, or the employee’s work (1) The law wasn’t based on the value of the work performed, instead it was intended to protect women's’ health and morals…. But, there was no evidence that the minimum wage improved women’s conditions b) The court also reasoned that women do no merit greater protection than men… Special workplace protections for women were unnecessary because women could protect their own interests through the political process and equal bargaining power (based on the newly passed 19th amendment and elevated status of women in

society). E. Dissenting opinion by Justice Taft 1. says that Congress had the policing power to correct recognizable evils. 2. Said freedom of contract was limited on the assumption that employers and employees didn’t have equal bargaining power IV.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937 A. Facts of the case - Under Washington state had a minimum wage law for women of $14.50 for each work week of 48 hours. Elsie Parrish, an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, received an amount less than this wage. Parrish brought a suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wage fixed by state law 1. West Coast Hotel alleged that because the minimum wage law prevented employers and employees from freely negotiating wages, it restrained "liberty" of contract without due process of the law. B. Legal issue - Does a minimum wage law for women violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment? C. Holding - No. Minimum wage requirements don’t violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. D. Reasoning - Majority opinion written by Justice Hughes said that the minimum wage law did not violate the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment 1. The Court next ruled that the minimum wage law did not violate "procedural" due process because it was a "reasonable," not arbitrary, regulation… a) Given current social and economic conditions, it was reasonable for law to interfere with contractual freedoms between adults by setting a floor under which wage levels could not drop. Minimum wage law was constitutional because it reasonably regulated contracts to protect the health and welfare of workers. 2. Court flatly declared that the "Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract", only prohibits the deprivation of liberty without the due process of law. This liberty is "a qualified, and not an absolute, right" under the Fourteenth Amendment. a) The Court argued that while the Fourteenth Amendment bans arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, and property by the state, it does not prohibit the states' ability to "reasonably" regulate the terms of certain activities for the public good… in this case, Washington’s minimum wage law was reasonable 3. Ended the "Lochner era," during which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects substantive economic rights against the state, such as

the right to freely negotiate contracts and wages. West Coast Hotel ruled that no such right exists and that a state may constitutionally restrict the terms of private contracts when protecting the welfare of its citizens.

4/3/19 I.

II.

Griswold v. Connecticut A. Facts of the case B. Legal question C. Holding D. Reasoning Roe v. Wade A. Facts of the case - Roe, a Texas resident, wanted to get an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.

B. C. D. Legal question - Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? E. Holding - Yes F. Reasoning 1. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling....