Lochner v. New York: Tradition or Change in Constitutional Law
As he delivered the majority opinion in Lochner v. New York on April 17, 1905, Justice Rufus Peckham probably had no idea a century later we would be commemorating its centennial. As Supreme Court cases go, this one seemed inconsequential. In a five-to-four vote, the Court struck down a New York law that limited the hours a baker could work to ten hours a day and sixty hours a week. Yet Lochner v. New York became in the Progressive and New Deal eras what Roe v. Wade has become in ours. For people who were unhappy with the Court's direction, Lochner represented the entrenchment of a bad public policy based on a flawed political, economic, and social theory. They had no hesitation in describing that theory as a “do nothing philosophy” rooted in laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism. Even worse to critics was their fervent belief that Lochner symbolized a major change in constitutional doctrine and that the Court had twisted the Constitution in order to equate that theory with a constitutional right. Although it may be an exaggeration to speak of any action of the Supreme Court as a revolution, critics of the time viewed Lochner in that light. The most vehement among them viewed the decision as a coup d’etat. They charged that the Court had usurped power that properly rested with the legislature, and ultimately in the people, in order to turn a controversial political philosophy into fundamental law of the land. Thus, Lochner became the ultimate symbol of judicial overreaching.
