Ch. 9. THE DUE PROCESS, CONTRACT, AND JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSES

1. Economic Regulatory Legislation

A. The Rise and Fall of Due Process

What does the phrase "substantive due process" mean?

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, p. 501 (1897): is this a "substantive" due process case, or a jurisdictional case à la Pennoyer?

LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, p. 502 (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)

• held invalid:
• 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. 509 (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. 512 (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. 515 (1955)

• what regulation, with what purpose?
• what standard of review is applied?

FERGUSON V. SKRUPA, p. 517 (1963)

• what regulation, what purpose, what standard of review?
• is anything left now of "substantive due process" in economic cases?