Legal Definitions - Lochner era

The Lochner era refers to a significant period in American legal history, roughly from 1890 to 1937, during which the United States Supreme Court frequently invalidated state and federal laws aimed at regulating economic activity and working conditions. This era is named after the landmark case Lochner v. New York (1905).

During the Lochner era, the Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of the "due process" clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This interpretation held that these clauses protected not only procedural fairness but also substantive economic rights, particularly the "freedom of contract" between employers and employees. The Court believed that individuals should be largely free to negotiate the terms of their employment without government interference, reflecting a philosophy of laissez-faire, or minimal government intervention in the economy.

Consequently, the Court often struck down progressive legislation designed to improve working conditions, establish minimum wages, or limit working hours. This approach began to wane in the mid-1930s, particularly as President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs faced judicial challenges, leading to a shift in the Court's interpretation of governmental power to regulate the economy.

Here are some examples illustrating how the Lochner era philosophy would have applied:

• State Minimum Wage Law: Imagine a state legislature in 1910 passed a law establishing a minimum wage for women working in textile factories, arguing it was necessary for their health and welfare. During the Lochner era, the Supreme Court would likely have struck down this law. The Court would argue that it interfered with the fundamental "freedom of contract" between the factory owner and the female employee, preventing them from freely agreeing upon a wage, even if it was below the state-mandated minimum. The Court would view this as an unwarranted government intrusion into private economic arrangements.

• Mandatory Workplace Safety Equipment: Consider a scenario where, in 1920, a state enacted a law requiring all coal mining companies to install expensive new ventilation systems in their mines to reduce the risk of lung disease among miners. A Supreme Court operating under the Lochner era principles might invalidate this regulation. They could argue that such a mandate placed an undue financial burden on mine owners and infringed upon their economic liberty to operate their businesses as they saw fit. The Court might also imply that employees were free to contract for work in mines without such systems, thereby implicitly assuming the risks, and that the state should not dictate the terms of such contracts.

• Restrictions on Child Labor: Suppose a state in 1908 passed a law prohibiting children under the age of 14 from working in any manufacturing facility, aiming to protect their health and ensure their education. While such laws eventually gained acceptance, during the height of the Lochner era, the Supreme Court might have viewed this as an infringement on the parents' right to contract their children's labor or the employer's right to hire. The Court could argue that it interfered with the economic liberty of families to make decisions about their children's employment and the freedom of businesses to hire available labor, regardless of age, thus striking down the protective measure.