Schenck v. United States: Free Speech Limits

• Justice Wendell Holmes interpreted the constitution in a flexible and practical way
• He thought judges ought to respect laws made by elected officials unless the Constitution is violated
• Laws ought to adapt to real-life experiences instead of strictly sticking to legal theories

Holmes's Majority Opinion in Schenck V. United States- Limits Free Speech

• The U.S. Supreme Court looked over the limits of free speech under the 1st amendment
• Charles Schenck, a socialist, was against the draft in World War One and violated the Espionage Act by passing out pamphlets against the military draft
• The question was whether Schenck's actions were protected by the 1st Amendment
• Schencks argued it was a political expression
• With a 9-0 vote, it was decided his speech was not protected by the First Amendment due to “clear and present danger.”
• Holmes, having the majority opinion, presented the court with the clear and present danger test
• What Schenck distributed was intended towards stopping people from following the draft law, which was a threat to national security during wartime
• This was illegal under the Espionage Act
• Holmes said free speech has limits, especially in times of war, when it poses a real danger to the country

Holmes Dissenting Opinion in Loncher V.S New York- certain hours worked for bakery owners

• The question was whether a state law limiting how many hours a baker can work violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of liberty of contract
• Bakery owner Joesph Lochner got a fine for violating the bakeshop law of 1895
• Bakeshop Law of 1895 limits workers to no more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a workweek
• Lochner challenged the New York state law, saying it violated his 14th amendment due process clause
• His argument was that he and his workers should be able to choose their work hours without government interference
• With a 5-4 ruling for Lochner, it was declared unconstitutional
• Holmes thought the majority opinion was wrong
• Holmes stated the government had the right to pass laws to help public health, even if this affects small business contracts
• Holmes believed using the Constitution to protect “freedom of contract" or other economic rights should only happen if the government clearly violated a fundamental right
• Holmes said the law protects public health and wealth
• Holmes said the courts should not offer protection to these businesses from these regulations
• New York had the right to protect bakers' health
• The majority said the government should not interfere with the contract between employers and workers, but the dissent (Holmes) said they do have that right if it protects their health and safety

West Coast Hotel Company V.S Parish

• Main point of contention was whether a state minimum wage law for women violated the 14th Amendment's protection of freedom of contract
• With a 5-4 vote in favor of Elsie Parrish, the court said that its actions did not violate the due process clause
• Justice Hughes gave the majority opinion with Justice Sutherland providing the dissenting opinion
• Parrish sued her employer for not paying her the correct minimum wage for women
• She argued that that she was owed the difference
• The employer/hotel lost and was required to pay her the wages she owed
• Washington fixed the minimum wage for women at $14.50 per week of a 48 hour work week
• The hotel argued the law violated the 14th Amendment's due process clause because it interfered with the “freedom of contract,” which meant the right of employers to set their terms of employment
• The majority (Hughes) stated that freedom of contract is not absolute. He argued that regulating employment contracts is justified by the need to protect the welfare of workers
• States have the right to establish laws like minimum wage to prevent the exploitation of workers
• Hughes states the Due process Clause of the 14th amendment does not give people the unlimited right to make contracts, especially when the law is meant to protect workers
• They do not have the right to make any contract epically if it hurts workers
• Dissent (Sutherland) said that the 14th Amendment's due process clause should protect people to make their work contracts without any government involvement.
• Sutherland believed that the law, which set a minimum wage, was too much interference by the government and should not have been allowed
• He felt that workers and employers should have the freedom to agree on wages without rules from the government
• Sutherland cited Adkins vs children Hospital, which struck down similar laws
• Constitutional questions: Does a state minimum wage law for women violate the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
• Could states regulate wages as part of their police powers in order to protect workers and promote general welfare?

Bradwell vs Illinois

• With an 8 to 1 vote, the court rejected Bradwell's claim, upholding Illinois' decision to deny her admission to the bar
• Myra Bradwell, who lives in Illinois, applied to the state to practice law
• She argued that the second section of the 4th article of the constitution of the U.S and the 14th amendment by the Privileges Clause entitled her to the license
• The court denied her license, declaring that the legislature never intended for women in the legal profession and that men were designated to make and enforce laws
• Majority Justice Miller ruled that the 14th amendment did not guarantee a right to practice law and states have the authority to regulate admission to the bar
• This court-reinforced gender-based legal barriers in professional fields
• Dissent Justice Chase did not write a formal opinion
• The case reinforced gender-based discrimination in the legal profession and highlighted the limits of the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause
• Did Illinois' refusal to grant Myra Bradwell a law license violate the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which is intended to protect peoples rights from state laws?

Slaughterhouse Case

• The court upheld Louisiana's 1869 “slaughterhouse monopoly” law with a divided vote of 5-4
• This permitted a single company exclusive rights to operate slaughterhouses in New Orleans, limiting competition
• It was asked was a monopoly of slaughterhouse companies in new realens unconstitutional
• All butchers had to pay to use the sole slaughterhouse
• The butchers sued, saying it violated their rights under the 13th and 14th amendments and unfairly benefited one company
• The majority (Miller) said that the Louisiana law violated the 14th amendment
• Miller said it was unfair to only have one business because it would take away other butchers' ability to run their own business
• The Court said this violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects people's right to fair treatment
• The Court also said laws to protect public safety are okay, but this law was not about safety- it was about giving one company special treatment
• Dissent- The dissenting opinion might have said the law was okay because it was about ensuring safe slaughterhouses according to hygiene and heath regulations
• The dissent may have argued it was important for the government to set clear standards for meat inspection, even if it meant less competition The majority disagreed, saying it wasn't fair to give only one company all the control.