1. Economic Regulatory
Legislation
A. The Rise and Fall of Due Process
· What does the phrase "substantive due process"
mean?
· Allgeyer v.
Louisiana, p. 515 (1897): is this a
"substantive" due process case, or a jurisdictional case à la Pennoyer?
· LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, p. 516 (1905)
- What
regulation, with what purpose?
- What
standard of review is applied?
- If
the purpose is to protect the workers' health, why does the law
fail?
- is
the purpose legitimate?
- is
there a rational relationship between the law and the purpose?
- if
so, what more does the Court require?
- If
the purpose is to protect workers economically, why does the law
fail?
- is
the purpose legitimate? is bargaining power relevant?
- is
there an appropriate relationship between law and purpose?
· Subsequent cases (notes not specifically assigned)
- bans on anti-union labor contracts (Adair
(1908), Coppage (1915))
- minimum wage legislation (Adkins v. Childrens' Hospital (1923))
- price regulations (Tyson (1927) and Williams
(1929))
- held valid: maximum hour legislation (Muller (1908)(women), Bunting
(1917)(all workers, combined with time-and-a-half overtime)) -- are
these consistent with Lochner?
· NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, p. 523 (1934) -- note the date of
"turnaround"!
- what
regulation, with what purpose?
- what
standard of review is applied?
- is
the decision consistent with Lochner?
- followed
re minimum wage: West Coast Hotel Co. (1937)
· U.S. V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., p. 526 (1938)
- what
regulation, with what purpose?
- what
standard of review is applied?
- was
this "special interest legislation" for dairy farmers? So what?
· WILLIAMSON V. LEE OPTICAL, p. 529 (1955)
- what
regulation, with what purpose?
- what
standard of review is applied?
· FERGUSON V. SKRUPA, p. 531 (1963)
- what
regulation, what purpose, what standard of review?
- is
anything left now of "substantive due process" in economic
cases?