Lochner v. New York vs. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
A side-by-side comparison of two landmark constitutional law cases
Lochner v. New York
198 U.S. 45 (1905) (1905)
Holding
The Court held 5-4 that the Bakeshop Act violated the Due Process Clause by unreasonably interfering with the liberty of contract between employers and employees. The majority concluded that bakery work was not sufficiently unhealthy to justify the state's exercise of police power and that the law was not a legitimate health regulation but an improper labor regulation.
Doctrine Established
Liberty of Contract / Economic Substantive Due Process
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
300 U.S. 379 (1937) (1937)
Holding
The Court upheld the Washington minimum wage law in a 5-4 decision, overruling Adkins v. Children's Hospital. Chief Justice Hughes wrote that the Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract and that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause is subject to regulation reasonably related to a proper legislative purpose. The exploitation of workers through substandard wages was a legitimate subject of legislative concern.
Doctrine Established
End of Economic Substantive Due Process / Rational Basis Review for Economic Regulation
Comparison Analysis
Lochner v. New York (1905) and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) bookend the so-called Lochner era and represent one of the most dramatic doctrinal reversals in Supreme Court history. Lochner struck down a New York law limiting bakers' working hours, holding that the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevented states from interfering with private employment agreements absent a direct and substantial connection to public health or safety. West Coast Hotel overruled Lochner's approach, upholding a Washington state minimum wage law for women and effectively ending judicial enforcement of economic substantive due process.
The doctrinal significance of this pair lies in what they reveal about the Court's role in economic regulation. During the Lochner era, the Court treated freedom of contract as a fundamental right subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, effectively substituting its policy judgment for that of the legislature. West Coast Hotel's 'switch in time that saved nine' (so called because it came during FDR's court-packing threat) restored rational basis review for economic legislation, holding that the Constitution does not guarantee an absolute freedom of contract and that legislatures may reasonably protect workers from exploitative conditions.
These cases are essential for understanding the modern tiers of scrutiny. After West Coast Hotel, economic regulations receive only rational basis review, while fundamental rights identified in the substantive due process tradition (privacy, marriage, bodily autonomy) receive heightened scrutiny. The ghost of Lochner haunts every substantive due process argument, as courts and litigants must distinguish legitimate protection of fundamental rights from the discredited practice of courts imposing their economic policy preferences.
Similarities
- Both involve Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause challenges to state labor and employment regulations
- Both address the scope of 'liberty' protected by substantive due process and whether economic freedom of contract falls within that protection
- Both required the Court to determine the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny for economic legislation
- Both had enormous practical consequences for the regulatory state and the government's ability to enact labor protections
Differences
- Lochner struck down the regulation as violating liberty of contract, while West Coast Hotel upheld it and rejected Lochner's framework
- Lochner applied heightened scrutiny to economic legislation, while West Coast Hotel applied deferential rational basis review
- Lochner treated freedom of contract as a near-fundamental right, while West Coast Hotel held that contract rights are subject to reasonable regulation for the public welfare
- West Coast Hotel was decided during the political crisis of the New Deal and FDR's court-packing plan, creating external pressure that did not exist in Lochner's era
- Lochner is now universally regarded as wrongly decided and serves as a cautionary example, while West Coast Hotel is celebrated as a course correction
Why This Comparison Matters
This pair is essential for any substantive due process question. When a professor presents a fact pattern involving government regulation challenged under the Due Process Clause, students must determine whether the right at issue is economic (rational basis after West Coast Hotel) or involves a fundamental right like privacy or bodily autonomy (heightened scrutiny). The specter of Lochner is invoked whenever opponents argue the Court is engaging in substantive due process activism -- students should be prepared to explain why modern fundamental rights cases are or are not 'Lochnerizing.'
More Constitutional Law Comparisons
Marbury v. Madison vs. McCulloch v. Maryland
Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) are the two foundational Marshall Court decisions that established the structural architecture of American constitutional law. Marbury created judicial review, empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional legislation, while McCulloch established the doctrine of implied powers and federal supremacy over state interference. Together they resolved the two most fundamental questions about the new Constitution: who interprets it, and how broadly should federal power be construed.
Gibbons v. Ogden vs. Wickard v. Filburn
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) represent two critical poles in the evolution of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Gibbons was the first major Commerce Clause case, in which Chief Justice Marshall interpreted 'commerce among the several states' broadly to include navigation and any commercial intercourse that affects more than one state. Wickard pushed this doctrine to its outer boundary, holding that a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption could be regulated under the Commerce Clause because the aggregate effect of many such farmers on the interstate wheat market was substantial.
United States v. Lopez vs. United States v. Morrison
United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000) are the landmark Rehnquist Court decisions that imposed the first meaningful limits on Commerce Clause power since the New Deal. Lopez struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act because possessing a gun near a school was not economic activity and Congress had made no jurisdictional findings connecting the conduct to interstate commerce. Morrison extended this holding by striking down the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act, even though Congress had compiled extensive legislative findings documenting the economic effects of gender-motivated violence.
Gonzales v. Raich vs. United States v. Lopez
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and United States v. Lopez (1995) represent the tension at the heart of modern Commerce Clause doctrine. Lopez established the first post-New Deal limit on congressional power, holding that regulation of non-economic activity (gun possession near schools) exceeded the Commerce Clause. Just ten years later, Raich appeared to pull back toward the expansive Wickard v. Filburn approach, upholding federal authority to prohibit home-grown marijuana for personal medical use under California law. The apparent contradiction has generated significant academic debate.