In Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court struck down a New York law limiting the hours an employer (John Lochner in this case) could require of his or her workers. "Liberty of Contract," was central in Justice Peckham's majority (5-4) opinion.
"...Under that provision no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment..."
Liberty of Contract, in this case, upheld the right of the workers to freely negotiate their own wages and hours; having legislation passed to protect their own safety was unconstitutional simply because it infringed upon their right to negotiate their own contract. Reading this today, I couldn't help finding the idea ironic, almost to a humorous point.
On another note, the beauty of having numerous justices on a court plays it's trump card when stare decisis is overturned, as the concept of "liberty of contract," later was. The dissenting opinions of other justices almost provide a cleaner and more decisive transition. In other words, usually, when precedent is overturned, the majority opinion falls upon a preexisting, and formerly, a dissenting one. In Lochner, I found Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion to be particularly ahead of his time (and a classic adherence to his personal philosophy of judicial restraint).
"This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain...I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement [of the economic theory] has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law...I think the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law."
This was an interesting case where the law seemingly was to protect the rights of the laborer but as you point may infringe on their right to negotiate their own contract. I debated whether regulation today is meant more to mandate how companies treat employees or what rights employees have. I would say that most laws regulating businesses try to do both, to not only make concrete rights for laborers but also to ensure that companies observe those rights.
ReplyDelete