Today in Supreme Court History: January 15, 1908

1/15/1908: Muller v. Oregon argued.

 

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The opinion notes:

It thus appears that, putting to one side the elective franchise, in the matter of personal and contractual rights, they stand on the same plane as the other sex. Their rights in these respects can no more be infringed than the equal rights of their brothers.

Did that settle the question that the limit of women's hours at issue in this case was unconstitutional? So said the challenger.

But this assumes that the difference between the sexes does not justify a different rule respecting a restriction of the hours of labor.

(The Court references the famous "Brandeis Brief" providing details.)

The unanimous opinion then provides details on the differences between men and women.

That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony of the medical fraternity, continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and, as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical wellbeing of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.

Lochner was left in place with a "women are different" proviso. The Supreme Court would later, after the passage of the 19th Amendment, in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, be more consistent regarding one rule for men and women.

In the 1930s, limits on wages and hours for both sexes were more likely to be upheld. The debate continued, however, regarding the need for special protectionist legislation for women only.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The syllabus also has this interesting passage:

The peculiar value of a written constitution is that it places, in unchanging form, limitations upon legislative action, questions relating to which are not settled by even a consensus of public opinion; but when the extent of one of those limitations is affected by a question of fact which is debatable and debated, a widespread and long continued belief concerning that fact is worthy of consideration.

This Court takes judicial cognizance of all matters of general knowledge -- such as the fact that woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage which justifies a difference in legislation in regard to some of the burdens which rest upon her.