Substantive Due Process- Lochner

Front 1

Dred Scott

Back 1

First case to recognize SDP. Tanney's reasoning for striking down the Missouri Compromise because it deprived citizens of right to property. When 14th passed overruling Dred Scott, it was thought that SDP was dead.

Front 2

Slaughterhouse Cases

Back 2

Brown in majority held that SDP in the case of the butchers did not deprive them of liberty. Bradley dissenting argued that the monopoly should be invalidated under due process- depriving the butchers of liberty. Adopting the profession they want.

Front 3

Munn v. Illinois

Back 3

SC upheld law regulating grain storage, but regulation could violate SDP by depriving a person of property and liberty.

Front 4

Allgeyer v. Lousiana

Back 4

Law required insurance contracts covering state property to be made with insurer register in the state. Insurance agent was convicted. SC found that the law interfered with the freedom of contract and violated SDP.

Front 5

Munn and Allgeyer importance

Back 5

These cases stated that SDP was a limit on the government's regulatory power.

Front 6

Lochner v. New York- Author, Holding and Meaning

Back 6

Peckham. SC declared unconstitutional law prohibiting bakers from working more than 10 hour days as violating due process for interfering with right of contract. The Lochner case memorializes the period of time when state's economic regulations were invalidated by SDP.

Front 7

Lochner- Majority Reasoning

Back 7

SDP protects freedom of contract as basic right protect as liberty and property rights. Government could interfere with freedom fo contract only to serve police purpose--public safety, health, morals. Court's role was to scrutinize legislation interfering with freedom of contract. SC found that the state's purpose might have been other such as redistribute wealth. No relation to health of bakers. Anti-Class legislation. Free labor movement.

Front 8

Lochner- Harlan dissent

Back 8

Focuses on health justification and says that SC must defer to government--looks like RB. Argues taht there is a rational relationship between the means employed by the state and the objective

Front 9

Lochner- Holmes

Back 9

There is no special right to contract. Liberty is liberty. SC is imposing its own opinion regarding views--the constitution does not have an economic theory.

Front 10

End of Lochner-

Back 10

Nebbia v. New York- SC upheld NY law regulating mil prices. SC concluded that means selected had real and substantial relation to objective sought.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish- SC explicitly does away with Lochner doctrine. State has power to regulate contract. There is nothing special about right to contract.