Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1923 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessLiberty of ContractMinimum WageFifth Amendmentdue processliberty of contractminimum wage

Facts

Congress enacted a 1918 statute for the District of Columbia authorizing a board to set minimum wages for women and minors based on what was necessary to supply cost of living, maintain health, and protect morals. Children's Hospital employed adult women under voluntary wage agreements that in some instances were below the board's ordered minimum, and sought to enjoin enforcement under the Fifth Amendment. In the companion case, Lyons, a twenty-one-year-old woman wished to continue working as an elevator operator for $35 per month and meals, but lost her job because the employer could not lawfully keep her at that wage. The women involved were adults, sui juris, and under no legal disability.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause permit Congress to authorize a board to fix minimum wages for adult women in private employment in the District of Columbia? More specifically, may the government forbid willing adult women and employers from agreeing on wages below a board-set minimum based on living needs, health, and morals?

Rule

Liberty under the Fifth Amendment includes freedom of contract, including contracts for employment, and legislative restraints on that freedom are valid only in exceptional circumstances. A wage law that permanently fixes minimum compensation for adult women in private employment, not to regulate a business affected with a public interest, not to meet a temporary emergency, not to regulate hours or payment methods, and not to protect persons under legal disability, but solely to require wages sufficient for subsistence, health, and morals, is an unconstitutional and arbitrary interference with freedom of contract.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates the Capital Wage Commission for private employers in Washington, D.C. The commission orders all private art galleries to pay adult women at least $720 per week, calculated by reference to housing, food, and other living expenses in the city, even if a gallery and an employee would voluntarily agree to less for part-time work.

If a gallery seeks to enjoin enforcement under the Fifth Amendment, what is the strongest argument that the order is unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that liberty under the Fifth Amendment includes freedom of contract in private employment, and that a permanent minimum wage law for adult women in private employment is unconstitutional when it fixes pay by reference to cost of living, health, and morals rather than the value of the services rendered. The law is treated as price-fixing at the heart of the contract, not as a permissible regulation of payment methods or hours. (Derived from Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia (1923).)