Categories: Court Info

The Lochner Era: How Substantive Due Process Reshaped US Law

Post Overview: Economic Liberty and the Constitution

This post delves into the Lochner Era (1905–1937), a critical period in U.S. constitutional history defined by the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Substantive Due Process to protect economic liberty and the freedom of contract against government regulation.

Few periods in American jurisprudence spark as much debate and criticism as the Lochner Era. Spanning roughly from 1905 to 1937, this period saw the U.S. Supreme Court strike down numerous state and federal economic and social regulations based on a doctrine known as economic substantive due process. Understanding this era is essential to grasping the historical pendulum swing of judicial review and the evolution of individual rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Birth of Economic Substantive Due Process

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that a state cannot deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Initially, this clause was interpreted to guarantee *procedural* fairness (i.e., fair hearings and proper steps). However, beginning in the late 19th century, the Court began reading a *substantive* component into the clause, suggesting that the government must have an adequate justification for depriving a person of a fundamental right, regardless of the procedure used.

This substantive reading gradually incorporated certain unenumerated rights, including economic rights like the freedom of contract. The landmark 1897 case of *Allgeyer v. Louisiana* is often cited as a precursor, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment protected economic freedoms from arbitrary state restrictions. This set the stage for the era’s defining decision.

💡 Tip Box: Substantive vs. Procedural Due Process

Procedural Due Process concerns the *how*—the methods and steps the government must follow when taking away a right (e.g., notice, a hearing).

Substantive Due Process concerns the *why*—is the government’s reason for taking away a right sufficient, and is the right itself fundamental? The Lochner Era applied this concept to economic rights, while the modern Court applies it mainly to personal liberties (e.g., marriage, privacy).

The Defining Moment: Lochner v. New York (1905)

The era gets its name from Lochner v. New York (1905), the case that crystalized the doctrine. The facts revolved around the New York Bakeshop Act, a progressive labor law that limited bakery employees to working no more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. Joseph Lochner, a bakery owner, was fined for violating the maximum-hour provision.

Case Box: Lochner v. New York

Issue: Did the New York Bakeshop Act violate the liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Majority (Justice Peckham): Yes. The Court ruled 5-4 that the law was an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of an individual to contract for their labor. The Court found the law was not a legitimate exercise of the state’s police powers (i.e., powers to regulate health, safety, and morals) because the baking profession was not inherently dangerous enough to warrant such a restriction.
Dissent (Justice Holmes): In his famous dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. argued that the Constitution “does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics,” criticizing the majority for importing their preferred laissez-faire economics theory into the Constitution.

The Heyday of Judicial Activism and Its Impact

Following *Lochner*, the Court spent the next three decades engaging in significant judicial activism, invalidating over 200 social and economic regulations. The Court, influenced by theories of Social Darwinism and free-market ideology, employed a heightened level of scrutiny for economic legislation. If a law infringed upon the liberty of contract, the government had to demonstrate a strong, direct link between the regulation and a clear threat to public health, safety, or morals. This was a difficult standard to meet.

Legislation concerning minimum wages, maximum hours, and the prohibition of “yellow-dog contracts” (which forbid union membership) were frequently struck down. This effectively crippled legislative efforts to address the social and economic inequalities of the industrial age.

Comparing the Scrutiny Tests

Scrutiny Level	When Applied	The Test
Lochner Era (Economic)	Economic Regulation	Requires a direct, substantial relationship to legitimate police powers (often failed).
Modern (Economic)	Economic Regulation	Rational Basis Test: Must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (almost always passes).

The “Switch in Time” and the End of the Era

The Great Depression exposed the limits of laissez-faire ideology and ushered in the New Deal Era under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. When the Supreme Court continued to invalidate key New Deal legislation—such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act—the country faced a constitutional crisis. President Roosevelt responded by proposing a controversial plan to “pack” the Court by adding new justices for every justice over the age of 70.

Although the plan failed politically, a change in judicial alignment, often referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine,” led to a major doctrinal shift. The 1937 case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish marked the official end of the Lochner Era’s economic doctrine. The Court upheld a minimum wage law for women, explicitly rejecting the *Lochner* rationale and adopting a highly deferential standard—the Rational Basis Test—for economic regulation.

Caution Box: Avoiding Misinterpretation

While the economic application of substantive due process was repudiated, the underlying doctrine itself was not eliminated. In later decades, the Court revived the non-economic use of Substantive Due Process to protect fundamental personal rights, such as the right to privacy (*Griswold v. Connecticut*), parental rights (*Meyer v. Nebraska*, *Pierce v. Society of Sisters*), and the right to marry (*Obergefell v. Hodges*). This modern application remains a central, though controversial, feature of American Constitutional Law.

Summary: Key Takeaways on the Lochner Legacy

Economic Rights Over Public Welfare: The Court used the concept of Substantive Due Process to elevate Freedom of Contract and Economic Liberty above a state’s broad power to legislate for public welfare (Police Powers).
Judicial Activism: The era is criticized as a period of Judicial Activism where a conservative majority substituted its own economic judgment for that of democratically elected legislatures.
The Defining Case: The 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, striking down a maximum-hour law for bakers, is the era’s infamous symbol.
Repudiation: The era ended in 1937 with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, ushering in the modern, deferential Rational Basis Test for economic legislation.
Modern Relevance: The controversy over the *Lochner* approach continues to frame debates over judicial interpretation of Unenumerated Rights, albeit mostly in the realm of personal, rather than economic, liberties.

Post-Lochner Era: A Transformation

The rejection of Lochner‘s economic doctrine fundamentally altered the balance of power between the courts and the legislature. It granted Congress and state assemblies vastly expanded authority to regulate the national economy, laying the constitutional foundation for modern labor laws, consumer protection, and the expansive administrative state. Consult with a qualified Legal Expert to understand how these historical shifts influence contemporary regulatory and constitutional challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What key constitutional provision was central to the Lochner Era?

A: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was central, specifically its application to the concept of Substantive Due Process. The Court interpreted the word “liberty” in the clause to include the Freedom of Contract as a fundamental right.

Q: What does the term “Laissez-faire Economics” have to do with the Lochner Era?

A: The majority of the Supreme Court justices during the Lochner Era were philosophically inclined toward Laissez-faire Economics, the idea that government should interfere as little as possible in the free market. Critics argue that the Court used Judicial Review to enforce this economic philosophy by striking down protective labor laws.

Q: Did the Supreme Court get rid of Substantive Due Process entirely after 1937?

A: No. After 1937, the Supreme Court abandoned the *economic* application of Substantive Due Process, making economic regulation easy to uphold under the Rational Basis Test. However, the doctrine was later revived to protect *personal* and *noneconomic* fundamental liberties, such as the right to privacy and familial autonomy.

Q: Why is the Lochner Era seen as an example of negative Judicial Activism?

A: It is widely considered an example of negative Judicial Activism because the Court struck down laws based on a right (the Liberty of Contract) that was not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, arguably substituting the judges’ personal economic and political preferences for the will of the legislature. This is the core of the “anti-Lochner” consensus in modern Constitutional Law.

Q: What famous dissent best summarizes the criticism of the Lochner decision?

A: The dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Lochner v. New York is the most famous. He stated, “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics,” directly accusing the majority of allowing their personal economic theories (Social Darwinism and Laissez-faire) to dictate constitutional interpretation.

Disclaimer: This blog post was generated by an AI assistant based on publicly available legal information and is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified Legal Expert for advice regarding your individual situation, case law, or statute-specific questions.

Substantive Due Process, Lochner Era, Lochner v. New York, Freedom of Contract, Economic Liberty, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause, Police Powers, Judicial Review, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, Laissez-faire Economics, Judicial Activism, Bakeshop Act, Constitutional Law, Unenumerated Rights, New Deal Era, Rational Basis Test, John Marshall Harlan Dissent, Rufus W. Peckham, Liberty of Contract

geunim