The Supreme Court in the
Progressive Era
Northern Securities Co. v.
United States (1904)

Background


Two competing railroad
companies set up a holding
company to buy the
controlling interest of the two
railroads. The constitutionality
of the holding company was
questioned when President
Theodore Roosevelt pursued
his “trust busting” campaign
under the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act of 1890
Constitutional Issue

Does the Congress have the
authority under the commerce
clause to regulate the holding
company’s effort to eliminate
competition?
Northern Securities Company v.
United States

Decision


The Supreme Court ruled that a holding company formed
solely to eliminate competition between the 2 railroads
was in violation of the anti-trust laws because it
unreasonably restrained commerce.
Importance


The federal government now had the authority to regulate
any conspiracy which sought to eliminate competition
between otherwise competitive railroads.
The government’s policy of trust busting helped restore
competition in the American economy.
Northern Securities Co. v. United
States (1904)



Topic: Use of Anti-Trust legislation against
railroad consolidation
Was decision a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE
for Progressive reform?
POSITIVE – gave the gov’t power to
restore competition in railroad industry
Lochner v. New York
(1905)


Background
 A New York law limited the
number of hours bakery
employees could work.
Lochner was convicted and
fined for permitting an
employee to work more than
the lawful number of hours in
one week.
Constitutional Issue
 Does the law limiting the
number of hours the
employees were allowed to
work interfere with the bakery
owner’s right to make
employer/employee
contracts?
Lochner v. New York


Decision
 The Supreme Court ruled that even though states have
the power to regulate areas of health, safety, morals, and
public welfare, the New York law in question was not
within the limits of these “police powers” of the State.
Importance
 During the time that Progressive reformers were working
to improve the conditions and terms of employment for
Americans, the Court struck down a number of state laws
that interfered with an individual’s economic and property
rights.
(This decision was later overturned by the Court.)
Lochner v. New York (1905)



Topic: New York law to limit workers hours
Was decision a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE
for Progressive reform?
NEGATIVE – state can’t interfere with the
workers’ right to negotiate contract
Muller v. Oregon
(1908)


Background
 An Oregon law prohibited
women from working in
factories or laundries more
than 10 hours a day. Mr.
Muller was convicted for
making a female employee
work more than the 10 hour
limit.
Constitutional Issue
 Does the state of Oregon’s
law regulating women’s work
hours violate the “privileges
and immunities” clause of the
14th amendment by
forbidding the employment of
women for more than ten
hours a day in laundries and
factories?
Muller v. Oregon

Decision


The Court upheld the Oregon law that barred women from certain factory
and laundry work. The Court took into account the physical differences
between men and women, based on the brief submitted by Louis D.
Brandeis stating that “women’s physical structure and the function she
performs…justify special legislation restricting the conditions under which
she should be permitted to toil.”
Importance

So-called “protective legislation” regulated the hours, locations, and type of
work that women could do. This protective legislation also prevented
women from entering certain occupations, many of the occupations that
paid higher salaries.
(The use of the “Brandeis Brief”, introducing sociological and
economic data, statistics, historical records and expert opinions in addition
to the legal arguments revolutionized courtroom presentations. Louis
Brandeis who was known as the “people’s attorney” was later appointed to
the Supreme Court by Wilson.)
Muller v. Oregon (1908)




Topic: Protective legislation limiting the hours
women could work
Was decision a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE for
Progressive reform?
POSITIVE – improved working conditions for
women; use of Brandeis brief
Later became a NEGATIVE when it was used to
discriminate against women in the workplace
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1916)
Unable to regulate hours and working conditions for child labor
within individual states, Congresssought to regulate child labor by
banning the product of that labor from interstate commerce.
The Keating-Owen Act of 1916 prohibited interstate commerce of
any merchandise that had been made by children under the age of
fourteen, or merchandise that had been made in factories where
children between the ages of 14 and 16 worked for more than eight
hours a day, worked overnight, or worked more than six days a
week.

Decision: Ruled in favor of Dagenhart by finding that Congress had
no authority under the Commerce Clause to restrict manufacturing
activities involving children.
(Justices Brandies and O. W. Holmes, dissenting)

Hammer v. Dagenhart was overruled in 1941 in the case of United
States v. Darby Lumber Co.
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1916)




Topic: Child labor laws
Was decision a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE for
Progressive reform?
NEGATIVE – declared child labor law
unconstitutional because it couldn’t be connected
to interstate commerce clause of the Constitution
Effective child labor laws will eventually tie no
child labor with mandatory school attendance