Lochner EraEdit
The Lochner era refers to a period in American constitutional law roughly spanning from the late 19th century into the 1930s, when the Supreme Court frequently invalidated state and federal economic regulation on the grounds that it violated the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The landmark 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York became emblematic: the Court struck down a state law limiting bakery workers’ hours as an unconstitutional intrusion into private economic choice. Over the next few decades, the Court used a theory of substantive due process to police the bounds of legislative power in the economic sphere, often constraining reforms aimed at limiting hours, wages, and working conditions. The era culminated in a dramatic constitutional shift in the mid- to late-1930s, as a new understanding of economic regulation took hold and the courts began deferring more readily to legislative judgments about public welfare.
From a legal and constitutional vantage, the Lochner era rested on a view of individual liberty as a broad, largely unregulated freedom of private contract. The central idea was that the Constitution protects law-regulation of the economy only insofar as it can be framed as a legitimate police power measure for public health, safety, and welfare. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause was read to shelter a range of economic choices—from setting hours and wages to determining terms of employment—from government interference unless a regulation could be shown to be a clear and direct violation of fundamental rights. See Fourteenth Amendment and Substantive due process for the framing of these arguments. The era also reflects the legal tension between state and federal authority, with the Court often resisting or limiting experiments in social policy that appeared to tread beyond narrowly drawn powers.
Key features of the Lochner era include a strong emphasis on economic liberty, a preference for limited government intervention in private contracts, and a cautious approach to social and labor legislation when such measures were framed as regulating private bargaining. Proponents argued that a robust right to contract supported a stable and prosperous economy by preventing governments from micromanaging the day-to-day terms of employment. Critics, by contrast, contended that this legal framework protected wealth and insulated powerful interests from the kinds of reforms—improved wages, safer workplaces, and fair labor standards—that broad segments of society demanded during times of rapid industrial change. The era sits within a broader political and economic milieu that included waves of industrialization, urbanization, and intermittent social unrest; the Court’s posture toward regulation reflected a constitutional architecture aimed at limiting court challenges to economic policy while still allowing core police powers to address health and safety concerns. See police power and New Deal for broader context.
Notable cases and developments during the era illustrate the range and limits of judicial intervention. In Lochner v. New York (1905), the Court invalidated a state law capping bakery workers’ hours, framing the regulation as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of contract. Lochner v. New York The companion case Muller v. Oregon (1908) upheld a state regulation limiting hours for women workers, though the decision has been interpreted as a narrow exception to the general pattern of striking down regulation; the opinion drew on differences in gender norms of the time. Muller v. Oregon Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) struck down a minimum wage for women in the federal district, continuing the era’s trend of preferring contract liberty over protective labor standards. Adkins v. Children's Hospital The Court also struck down elements of the National Industrial Recovery Act in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), emphasizing limits on federal power to regulate industry under the commerce clause—an important precursor to the pivotal shift in 1937. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
The era’s end is usually dated to the mid- to late-1930s, when a combination of economic crisis and political realignment produced a constitutional pivot. The rejection of Schechter’s line of reasoning and the broad acceptance of New Deal legislation signaled a move away from a strict enforcement of freedom of contract toward a broader willingness to regulate the economy for public welfare. Important turning points include West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which sustained a state minimum wage law for women and thereby undermined the previous orthodoxy against most economic regulation, and NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. (1937), which upheld federal industrial regulation as a legitimate exercise of congressional power under the commerce clause. These cases reflect a decisive shift in what the Constitution permitted in the name of labor protection and economic stabilization. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.
The Lochner era remains the subject of substantial debate. Supporters insist that the period protected a robust constitutional liberty that safeguarded economic freedom from politically expedient regulation, arguing that the rule of law requires courts to resist policies that are fragile, unpredictable, or corruptible by the tides of political fashion. Critics contend that the era obstructed necessary reforms, left workers exposed to unsafe conditions, and permitted a skewed balance of power in the economy. The debates intensify when addressing how the era treated different groups; for instance, Muller v. Oregon is sometimes cited as a limited acknowledgment of protective labor standards, but Adkins v. Children's Hospital is viewed as showing the era’s paternalistic tendencies toward female workers. Race and immigration policies also intersected with the era’s jurisprudence, as the courts navigated questions about who is protected by economic liberty and who remains subject to state and federal regulation. The shift away from Lochner-era reasoning helped pave the way for the modern regulatory state and the judicial framework that underpins it today. See freedom of contract for the core economic liberty doctrine, and New Deal for the broader shift in constitutional interpretation.
See also