Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lochner v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1905 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawsubstantive due processliberty of contractLochner eraFourteenth Amendmentdue processliberty of contractpolice power

Facts

New York's labor law provided that no employee in a biscuit, bread, or cake bakery or confectionery establishment could be required or permitted to work more than sixty hours in one week or ten hours in one day. The majority treated the statute as the substantial equivalent of forbidding employers and employees from contracting for labor beyond those limits, not as a law addressing involuntary labor. Lochner was indicted and convicted for wrongfully and unlawfully requiring and permitting an employee to work more than sixty hours in one week. The statute contained no emergency exception and operated as an absolute prohibition in all cases.

Issue

Does a New York law prohibiting bakery employees from working more than ten hours a day or sixty hours a week violate the Fourteenth Amendment by unreasonably interfering with the liberty of employer and employee to contract for labor? More specifically, is the statute a valid health measure within the state's police power?

Rule

The general right to make contracts concerning one's business, including the purchase and sale of labor, is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. A state may restrict that liberty only through a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power that has a direct relation to a legitimate end such as health, safety, morals, or welfare; mere assertion that a law relates to health is insufficient, and an unreasonable, unnecessary, or arbitrary interference with liberty of contract is invalid.

🔒

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.

Ohio enacts a statute making it unlawful for any private accounting firm in Cleveland to require or permit adult bookkeepers to work more than nine hours in a day. The legislature declares that prolonged desk work under artificial light may undermine worker health. Mira Nolan, who owns a small firm, is fined after allowing an adult employee to work eleven hours during tax season pursuant to a voluntary agreement.

Under the majority's approach, is the statute most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority treated freedom to buy and sell labor as part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. A state may interfere only through a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of police power having a direct relation to health, safety, morals, or welfare. For an ordinary occupation like bookkeeping, a general claim about indoor work and artificial light would be too remote and speculative, making the law an unreasonable and arbitrary interference with voluntary labor contracts.