Title: The Political Economy of Substantive Due Process
Abstract:1. In reJacobs, 98 N.Y. 98 (1885), which struck down a statute forbidding cigar manufacturing in tenement houses, is commonly identified as the first case applying due analysis. 2. The term substantiv...1. In reJacobs, 98 N.Y. 98 (1885), which struck down a statute forbidding cigar manufacturing in tenement houses, is commonly identified as the first case applying due analysis. 2. The term substantive due process refers also to the Court's fifth amendment jurisprudence in the area of federal regulation. Ever since Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908), and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), the Supreme Court has held that due should be applied to federal legislation under the fifth amendment and state legislation under the fourteenth amendment, using the same legal standard. See also Adkins v. Children's Hosp., 261 U.S. 525 (1923) (applying liberty of contract to federal statute under the fifth amendment). 3. E.g., Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936) (state minimum wage law); Murphy v. Sardell, 269 U.S. 530 (1925) (per curiam) (state minimum wage law); Adkins, 261 U.S. 525 (federal minimum wage law); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (state maximum hours law). 4. E.g., Weaver v. Palmer Bros., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) (statute regulating quality of materials used to make bedding); Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924) (statute requiring standardized weights for bread). 5. E.g., Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928) (state licensing of pharmacists). See also notes 49-57 infra and accompanying text. 6. E.g., New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) (statute conditioning entry into ice business on demonstration of necessity and inadequacy of existing public facilities). 7. E.g., Williams v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 235 (1929) (statute regulating prices of gasoline); Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350, 357 (1928) ([T]he fixing of prices for food or clothing, of house rental or of wages to be paid, whether minimum or maximum, is beyond the legislative power.); Tyson & Brother-United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927) (statute regulating prices of admissions to amusements); see also Smyth v. Ames,Read More
Publication Year: 1988
Publication Date: 1988-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 48
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot