Reasoning

The State of New York reasons that it has the power (police power) to prevent an individual from making certain kinds of contracts if in fact such labor contract would endanger the heath, safety, and welfare of such individual The baking of bread and other confections is a strenuous task. Bakery hours for employees customarily begin at very early hours of the morning and continue until past supper. Conditions are also strenuous; heat and flour dust, heavy loads, and dangerous machine are always present Heat is always a problem requiring employees to work (generally) without shirts or headgear - thus calling into question the sanitary conditions of the work environment. Such conditions mandate that the states use the police power to protect both the health and safety of the individual.

Decision

The Supreme Court notes that it already approved many uses of the police power for the protection of the public. It upheld a requirement that all teachers in public school be vaccinated for certain diseases; that states can require most businesses to close on Sundays (the Blue Laws), and an eight hour work day for employees of smelters and coke ovens.

The purpose of the case is to inquire if there is a reasonable basis for the State to interfere with the liberty of the individual to contract for labor and pay. The court feels that the limit of the police power has been reached in this case. "It is manifest to us," Peckhan’ notes," that the limitation of hours has no direct relationship to, and no substantial effect on, the health of the employee."

Peckham finds that there must be more than the mere fact of the possible existence of some small amount of unhealthiness to warrant legislative interference with liberty. Were it not so Peckham continues, "we would all be at the mercy of the state legislatures - no trade, occupation, no mode of earning one’s living could escape this all pervasive power, and the acts of the legislature in limiting the hours of labor."

[Note:] Peckham offers, no threshold test for determining when a so called valid police power ‘health law" crosses the line to an arbitrary limitation on employee/employer contract. He does hint however, that unless there is manifest danger ad injury, the state cannot lay a sufficient foundation for regulation and interference. His argument follows:

The state. Peckham asserts, cannot assume a rule of pater familias over every act of the individual His reasoning is:

Dissent

Justice Harlan’s dissent [joined by White and Day] is classic - a well known piece of American jurisprudence.

Harlan begins by acknowledging that while the court has not attempted to define the precise limits of the police power of the state [versus the 14th Amendment protection of the Constitution], the existence of the police power has been uniformly recognized equally by the State and Federal courts. He notes:

But, Harlan specifically notes that the right of contract itself is subject to certain limitations which the state may lawfully impose in the exercise of its police power. While this power is inherent in all governments, it has doubtlessly been expand in the past half century owing to an enormous increase in population, urban living, and persons employed in dangerous occupations. Having laid this foundation, Harlan notes that if there is a dispute or doubt as to the validity of the statutes [i.e. fair debatable] that doubt must be resolved in favor the state and the statute’s validity, and the carts must keep their hands off, otherwise the Court places itself in the role of enacting or disapproving legislation. Whether or not this New York law is wise legislation is not the province of the court to inquire. Under our system of government, the courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy [substantive due process] of legislation.

Harlan says that he finds it impossible to say that there is no real or substantial relation between the means employed nor does he say that the statutes has no appropriate or direct connection to the health that each state owes it citizens; still less can he say that the statute is, beyond question, an arbitrary and palpable invasion of rights secured by fundamental law. In fact, Harlan’s reading of the background indicates to him that the health of bakery workers is very much in question -they have constant eye infections and bronchial congestion because of the ever present flour dust

He summarizes by saying that it is the duty of the Court to guard the constitutional rights of citizens against arbitrary power, and equally true that public interests demand that legislative enactments should be seen as embodying the will of the people unless they are palpably beyond all question in violation of fundamental Constitutional guarantees.

Dissent

Justice Holmes’ dissent is a thinly disguised social commentary on his disgust with the conservative majority [5 members] of the Court

Holmes says that the Constitution does not embody a particular economic theory. It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of finding certain opinions novel or shocking, ought not to influence the Court on the question of police power legislation. Holmes continues that the States are now beginning to assert their authority to provide for the common welfare of their citizens. Some of this assertiveness involves contracted labor, while health and labor is only beginning to emerge as a subject of legislation. Like Harlan, Holmes declares that the Court has no business inquiring into the minds of the legislatures. Holmes uses his reasonable man test and says that men, who he would not call unreasonable, would uphold the law an the first installment of a general regulation on the hours of work.