Lochner v. New York

E54705

United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case labor law case landmark decision

Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.

Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

Observed surface forms (4)

Surface form	Occurrences
Lochner era	3
Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York	1
Lochner era Supreme Court	1
Lochner v. New York dissent	1

Statements (52)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ labor law case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
areaOfLaw	economic regulation ⓘ labor regulation ⓘ
argued	1904-02-23 ⓘ 1904-02-24 ⓘ
citation	198 U.S. 45 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Due Process Clause ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
criticizedFor	invalidating social and economic legislation ⓘ judicial activism ⓘ
decidingCourt	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1905-04-17 ⓘ
decisionType	5–4 decision ⓘ
dissentBy	Edward Douglass White ⓘ John Marshall Harlan ⓘ Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ William R. Day NERFINISHED ⓘ
eraNamedAfterCase	Lochner v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Lochner era
fullCaseName	Lochner v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York
hasJurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
holding	New York law limiting bakers to 60 hours of work per week and 10 hours per day violates the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ freedom of contract is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
impact	constrained state police power over economic regulation during the Lochner era ⓘ
influenced	jurisprudence on economic liberty ⓘ
issue	constitutionality of maximum-hours legislation for bakers ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	David J. Brewer ⓘ Henry Billings Brown ⓘ John Marshall Harlan ⓘ surface form: John Marshall Harlan (not in majority; remove) Joseph McKenna ⓘ Melville W. Fuller ⓘ
legalDoctrine	freedom of contract ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ
locationOfLowerCourt	New York ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Rufus W. Peckham ⓘ
namedAfter	Joseph Lochner ⓘ
overturnedStatute	New York Bakeshop Act ⓘ
pageInUnitedStatesReports	45 ⓘ
party	Joseph Lochner ⓘ Government of the State of New York ⓘ surface form: People of the State of New York
relatedCase	Adkins v. Children’s Hospital ⓘ Muller v. Oregon brief ⓘ surface form: Muller v. Oregon Nebbia v. New York ⓘ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish ⓘ
subjectOf	extensive scholarly commentary ⓘ
subsequentHistory	limited and repudiated by later Supreme Court decisions ⓘ
symbolizes	judicial protection of economic liberty against regulation ⓘ limits on government regulation of business ⓘ
topic	bakers’ working hours ⓘ
volumeOfUnitedStatesReports	198 ⓘ
yearDecided	1905 ⓘ

Referenced by (7)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. → era → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner era

Hammer v. Dagenhart → era → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner era

Lochner v. New York → eraNamedAfterCase → Lochner v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner era

Lochner v. New York → fullCaseName → Lochner v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York

Due Process Clause → interpretedInCase → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

George Sutherland → memberOf → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner era Supreme Court

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. → notableWork → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner v. New York dissent