Late 19th Century Supreme Court Decisions
US History & Government
In 1895, New York law limited bakery employees to working ten hours per day and sixty hours per week. Joseph Lochner challenged
the law and his case went to the Supreme Court. Below is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court:
“….There is no reasonable ground, on the score of health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free
contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker….. Clean and wholesome bread does not depend
upon whether the baker works but ten hours per day or only sixty hours a week….”
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Oregon passed a law limiting work hours for women to ten hours per day. Curt Muller was convicted for breaking the law and fined
$10. He sued and the case went to the Supreme Court. Below is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court:
“….That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle
for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her … and as healthy mothers
are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care
….While the general liberty to contract in regard to one's business and the sale of one's labor is protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment, that liberty is subject to proper restrictions [by] the State….”
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
What is the decision by the Supreme Court in Lochner v. New York?
What is the decision by the Supreme Court in Muller v. Oregon?
What did the Supreme Court do in the space of three years?
In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act outlawed all forms of ‘combinations’ (monopolies). The American Sugar Refining Company had
a monopoly over the sugar refining business and the government moved to break it up. The American Sugar Refining Company sued
arguing that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority. The case reached the Supreme Court. Below is the majority opinion
of the Supreme Court:
“the contracts and acts of the defendants related exclusively to the acquisition of …. refineries and the business of sugar
refining … and bore no direct relation to commerce between the states….. The object was …. manufacture of the
commodity, but not through the control of interstate commerce. …. it does not follow that an attempt to monopolize
….the manufacture was an attempt …. to monopolize commerce …. There was nothing …. to indicate any intention to put
a restraint upon trade or commerce …. the act of Congress only authorized the ….courts to proceed by way of
preventing…. [monopolies] …. in restraint of commerce.
US v. E.C. Knight (1894)
The Northern Securities Company was a holding company that controlled a majority of the stock in the Northern Pacific and Great
Northern Railroads. Teddy Roosevelt’s administration sought to break the company up because it would have monopolized railroad
traffic in the west. The case was heard by the Supreme Court. Below is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court:
“….the companies ….became, practically, one powerful consolidated corporation, by the name of a holding corporation,
the principal, if not the sole, object for the formation of which was to [prevent] …. Competition.... [T]he arrangement was
an illegal combination in restraint of interstate commerce, and fell within the prohibitions and provisions of the [Sherman
Antitrust Act] and it was within the power of the Circuit Court
Northern Securities v. US (1904)
What is the decision by the Supreme Court in US v. E.C. Knight?
What is the decision by the Supreme Court in Northern Securities v. US?
How had the Supreme Court changed in the ten years since the E.C. Knight case?
Over time, what happened to Progressive ideas about monopolies and workers rights?