Customer Reviews

Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a junior political science major at UNC, I have had to read a lot of books similar to Kens's. These books focus on a particular case, be it the Skokie trial, the Tinker armband case, the Chadha legislative veto case or the Bakke affirmative action case. Anthony Lewis's Gideon's Trumpet book seems to be the first of this kind.

Kens' book is by far the best of its type that I have read. The other books of this genre I've read in this genre deal too much with the proceedings of a case. For instance, Mr. Chadha had this legal problem, he got this lawyer, they went through this legal proceeding, they had to refine their arguments, they went to the next appellate court, blah blah blah. Frankly these kinds of details are boring, and give little if any insight into the importance of a given case.

Kens's has a different approach. Instead of going into great detail about why Mr. Lochner picked a given lawyer, Kens goes into great detail of the impetuses for the passage of the law that Mr. Lochner was challenging. He talks about the social and political climate of the times, tying in influential theories of the day like Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics. Kens clearly places the case of Lochner v. New York in its historical framework. This, it seems, is a superior method for studying an important case like this one.

I would strongly urge this book to any professor teaching a constitional law/history class. I would also strongly recommend it to a student looking for a good introduction to the study of substantive due process.

This is a great book. I like long books, but this one is short and sweet. Moves the story along, and explores the fascinating background to Lochner (including the history of the baking industry and the conflicts of interest -- to give but one example, the attorney for anti-union Lochner was in fact not an attorney and in fact was a union organizer in the past.

Also discusses the Negative Rights (Substantive Due Process in law) doctrine and has a great bibliography.

The author is clearly a world expert in this field and I wish the book could have been longer. The author does not appear to be heavily biased either for or against Positive Rights (read Big) government.

Bibliography and timeline at the end of the book is great too.

Outstanding.

I haven't actually compiled a list of all the nonfiction books under 300 pages that I have read, but I do not doubt that Kens's "Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial" was by far the greatest short nonfiction book I have ever read. In fewer than 200 pages Kens discusses New York machine politics, the Supreme Court, the court appeals process, the important political, legal, and economic personalities of the Industrial Revolution, judicial and legal theories, the Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause, economic regulation in American history, and the specifics of the case at hand with a level of detail necessary to do justice to each topic in a lucid manner. I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I'm not savvy enough to comment on the accuracy of Kens's book, but I think he does a fantastic job. The Industrial Revolution and the many good and bad effects of that powerful force can never be overstated, and the Lochner case, so it seems, brought many of the powerful arguments revolving around the Industrial Revolution to a pinpoint. Thankfully, over a century after that decision was announced to the nation (and not with much excitement at the time), we have Kens to thank for understanding it all. The only complaint I have with this book is the lack of citations. There should be in-text parenthetical sourcing or footnotes. Kens notes that in an earlier, and I'm guessing more scholarly, treatment he has all the citations necessary, but that's still not acceptable for this version. Thankfully there is a fairly thorough bibliographic essay at the end.

Lochner v. New York was a 1905 Supreme Court case where an anodyne state law regulating working hours in bakeries was ruled uncontitutional because it breached the "freedom" of workers and employers to form employment contracts on any terms the market allowed. The notion of liberty of contract had no constitutional basis -- it was invented by conservative social theorists after the Civil War -- but it had been smuggled into American jurisprudence by activist judges in the guise of enforcing the 14th amendment. It was a godsend to business groups that wanted to beat back state efforts to regulate working hours and minimum wages.

The libertarian ideas animating Lochner were already losing popularity by 1905, but the court continued to police state regulation of business for more than thirty years, hampering social reform and causing huge damage to the credibility of the judiciary. As an example of sheer judicial assertion, Lochner was the Roe v. Wade of its day.

This book is short, clearly written, and alive to the ironies (and hypocrisies) of judicial activism, where one's view tends to depend on whether the activism in question is conservative or progressive. My only complaint is that parts of the book meander off the main subject and seem to have been stitched together from research the author did for other projects. For example, there's way too much material on New York state politics, and the long discussion of the libertarianism of Justice Stephen Field, although fascinating, is a bit misplaced, since Field was long dead by the time Lochner was decided! That said, history buffs and law students will get a lot out of this book.

"Lochner v. New York" is one of the best known and most despised US Supreme Court rulings. In Lochner, the Court voted 5 to 4 to invalidate a New York law that limited bakers' working hours to 10 a day or sixty a week. The Court found that it was a "labor legislation", and therefore unconstitutional. To this day, Lochner v. New York is remembered as one of the most extremist judicial activist opinions, and gave the name to an era of conservative judicial activism, which lasted well into the New Deal.

Professor Paul Kens' "Lochner v. New York" (I shall henceforth refer to the decision as "Lochner" and to the book as "Lochner v. New York") is not the type of book I was looking for. I wanted a legal analysis of the infamous decision. Kens' book is less a legal analysis as a social, political and intellectual history, explaining the various trends that shaped the law, the case, and the decision.

Too often, Social History can be merely a list of practices, or a description of conditions that are entirely predictable to anyone with even a slight familiarity with economic and social concepts (see respectively Eric Poner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 and John Dower's Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II). "Lochner v. New York" on the other hand is revealing of the working conditions and social and economic situation of the baking industry, and Kens judicially uses statistics to chronicle its evolution from the mid 19th century to the early 20th.

As Intellectual history, Kens offers an in depth look at the thought of various Lessez-faire and Social Darwinist ideologists, as well as their progressive opponents. Although Kens clearly has little sympathy for Social Darwinists, they come out quite well - Social Darwinist thought, while extremist, is not all that different from modern Libertarianism.

Kos does a good job of describing the politics surrounding the Baking hour law's passing, and the ironies with which it abounded - including the fact that one of the Law's chief backers were later to argue its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court.

After contextualizing Lochner, Kens gets down to legal analysis. Essentially, the court applied the doctrine of "substantial due process" to declare the 10 hour law unconstitutional. The court used the 14th amendment requirement against deprivation of liberty to protect the "Sanctity of contract". The state must not deprive a person of the right to work at whatever terms he sees fit, unless it is for reasons of public health or safety, or unless the person is in need of paternalistic protection, if he is a minor or (in Victorian America) a she.

The vast majority of the Court, including Dissenter John Marshall Harlan, subscribed to this interpretation. Harlan only claimed that the Court should give the state the benefit of the doubt - if it claimed that the Law meant to protect bakers' health, then that is what it did. Only Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated a completely different vision: "The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" he famously wrote in his classic dissent. The sanctity of Contract was not in the constitution, and states should have no problem overruling it.

Kos agrees with the dissenters. He convincingly (in my view), demonstrates that the framers of 14th amendment did not intend to protect the liberty of contract, and that laissez faire Capitalism was not an antebellum ideology (although he may underestimate the extent to which laissez faire was latent in pre Civil War America - most ideologies only take shape when challenged, as laissez faire was by the increasingly powerful state of the late 19th century). Ken clearly thinks that the Court should not enforce values that are not clearly articulated in the Constitution text or its history.

Kens realizes that his position requires opposition not only to Lochner, but also to Liberal rulings such as Griswold v. Connecticut, which ensured the right of married individuals to use contraception. Kens argues that this also requires expansive, ideological reading of the Constitution and thus should be avoided.

But the very purpose of a constitution is to check the majority's power against minorities. Because times change, the means of oppression can change also. The specific clauses of the US constitution - the ones that protect against abuses that were known at the time of framing - are mostly outdated. Think of the 3rd amendment's prohibition against the stationing of soldiers at private houses. It is the more general, opaque clauses of the constitution (like the prohibition against abridging the Freedom of Speech or inflicting "Cruel and unusual punishments") that can deter present day majorities from manhandling minorities and protect the little citizen from Big Brother.

But can Lochner v. New York be distinguished from expansive Liberal rulings? Does adherence to Griswold force on us to accept Lochner?

I think there are good pragmatic reasons to say no. First, we should acknowledge that the Court's decision is right in treating suspiciously governmental intervention in the freedom of contracts. But the Court erred, in my view, in seeing Lochner as essentially a question of Liberty. I think Lochner is actually a question of wealth redistribution.

By regulating the terms in which bakeries and baker workers contract, New York improved the relative position of the workers vis a vis the owners. But government policy can most assuredly do that. The government is entitled to levy taxes in any form it wishes, whether progressively (taxing the rich more then the poor) or regressively (the other way around). It may levy tariffs on incoming goods, improving the lots of US manufacturers and worsening those of exporters. It can supply welfare benefits for the poor. The competition between the various interests is the very essence of the democratic process and should be left (within reason), to the democratic process. The time for the Court to intervene is to prevent Government from abusing citizens, not to keep the spoils out of the hands of the winners in marketplace of ideas.