The Supreme Court Case That Changed the Fate of American Workers For Decades | Lochner v. New York

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @iammrbeat
In episode 71 of Supreme Court Briefs, a baker gets arrested and fined after working his workers too much.
Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @jeremyblakemusic.
Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: • Supreme Court Briefs
Here's an annotated script with footnotes: docs.google.com/document/d/15...
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/...
Other sources used:
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner...
www.thirteen.org/wnet/supreme...
constitutioncenter.org/the-co...
landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case...
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
Connect with me:
linktr.ee/iammrbeat
Mr. Beat’s website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Mr. Beat’s second channel: / thebeatgoeson1981
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us/
How to support Mr. Beat:
💰Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
🤑Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
☕Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
“Free” ways to show support:
✔️Subscribe to my channel
⏰Turn on notifications
👍Like, share, and comment on my videos
Buy Mr. Beat merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
Buy Mr. Beat's book:
amzn.to/386g7cz
Amazon Storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/mr.beat
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Kids Connect: kidskonnect.com/?ref=iammrbeat
Ekster: ekster.com?sca_ref=444709.jvllq3EEOm
Shampoo: rb.gy/vlqeym
Acne fighter: rb.gy/a6dnb0
#supremecourt #supremecourtbriefs #scotus
Lochner v. New York, believe it or not, has never officially been overturned, and remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions of all time. The case marked a shift in how the Court began to interpret laws that regulated working conditions. After this, the Court increasingly struck down both state and federal laws that regulated labor. More broadly speaking, this case marked the beginning of a period that lasted more than three decades in which the Court generally erred more on the side of individual freedom instead of government power. In fact, historians today even call this period the “Lochner Era.” Crazy enough, the Lochner Era overlapped with the Progressive Era, a time when reformers themselves worked overtime to get rid of social and economic injustice. These reformers viewed the Lochner decision as one that simply just favored employers over employees.
Here’s my monthly shout out to everyone who donates to me on Patreon at least $15 or more each month to my channel, starting with the biggest donors. Thank you to Bill Dowd, Alicia Solberg, Andrew B. Anthony Beckett, Austin Siros, Corey Rieman, Douglas Martin, Dr. Paul J. Lilly, Elaine Warrick, Emily Eitzen, emptymachine, Fletch Fick, Isabelle, Isaiah Warfield, Joe Cook, Matt Standish, Michael Cortez, NeoR14, Nik Everett, Owen, Pat Iapicca, Patrick Steward, Sami, Samuel Striz, saulgoodman1917, Sean Conant, Society’s Basement, Adam Christians, Alex Cillasenor, Andrew Schneider, Grant Hughes, Ian Driscoll, Ilan Capone, Jack L, Jakob Birnbaum, Jesus Carillo, Joel Serrano Lozada, Oliver E, LT Marshall, Naterade, Raquell Jones, Stacey, Steve Bryan, Thomas Oppenheim, Warren Jarog, Waterfort, and Zachary F. Parker. I’m sorry if I mispronounced any names, but thanks to you all for donating, and thank YOU for watching.

[@iammrbeat]

My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e

[@yuuneeq9494]

My issue with this case is that it's very hard to hate an employer that was punished for paying people 30ish hours per week to sleep. Which is hardly different from many jobs that require on site work, or transpo work. That being said, he could have just upheld the bakeshop act by merely paying extra money to people who decided to sleep in the dorms when requested. However, he instead fought to get the act thrown out entirely, causing many more predatory businesses to abuse the ruling. It's a very weird case of a seemingly good person that caused everyone else's lives to become worse.

[@iammrbeat]

The problem is, this case wasn't decidedly narrowly. It was decidedly broadly, meaning they viewed it through a broader context.

[@route2070]

Or have 1 person work overnight and prepping the dough, and have a crew baking the bread. He can use the money he saved by paying no one to sleep and have everyone earn money by working.

[@night6724]

How did predatory businesses abuse this?

[@pocketsycho8720]

I wouldn’t say it was weird rather weird in the case of Supreme Court cases it could have been fulled by a mutal hatred of the government shared by both him and his employees

[@yuuneeq9494]

As Mr. Beat said, the law is applied very broadly. It didn't stop the government from regulating the hours that people worked. It hamstrung them from making decisions that might help workers get better conditions, stating that it went against the bill of rights. Which is... quite ironic. It's hard to say what it LITERALLY did, because the current job market is molded on that decision. We don't have any pictures of an alternate America where they ruled in the opposite direction.

[@alonkatz4633]

The dissenting opinions by Harlan and Holmes were groundbreaking in judicial review. They argued that the burden of proof should not be on the legislature, but on the challenger of the law. This later paved the way to the most important judicial test to decide where laws violating the constitution were constitutional or not: the rational basis test. Justices Harlan and Holmes were truly ahead of their time. Now I recommend everyone to go over the case that ended the Lochner era: "West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (widely known as the switch in time that saves nine), and the unusual story that led to it.

[@iammrbeat]

A future video!

[@alonkatz4633]

@@iammrbeat Looking forward to it... 😁

[@chloebaker3151]

As a historian from England, I find these videos so interesting! Thank you so much for using your platform to educate people in a fun way, your hard work is very much appreciated. My specialty is rooted in the Tudor and Stuart eras here in England, but I find a special intrigue in late 19th-early 20th century history in the USA.

[@iammrbeat]

After the 1960s and 1920s, the 1890s are one of my favorite decades to study in American history. It was such a similar time in many ways to our current era.

[@chloebaker3151]

@@iammrbeat The comparisons to now are most certainly there, and it is quite interesting to think about. From the economic decline, to the narrow line between religion and politics. There is a quote relating to the latter that was written by Richard Jensen in the 1970s “…Men spoke of political attachments in the same breath as loyalty to religion.” And as sad as it is, the same can very much be said today. On the topic of the economic decline, it would be interesting to see if things would have gone the same way if that one singular railroad company hadn’t gone into bankruptcy; or if the coup is Argentina hadn’t failed. Then again, I am not too well versed in that side of it to feel comfortable in the “what if” question.

[@jamiengo2343]

@@chloebaker3151 could one argue that the decline in religious belief left people without a fundamental vision of how the world worked and without fundamental beliefs, with many choosing politics to fill it.

[@LOLquendoTV]

I think this was bad decision, even if Lochner specifically might not have been the worst employer, its clear that due to the power imbalance that exists between those who sell their labor and those who buy it; exploitation will only really be mitigated with either government intervention or perhaps collective bargaining. Even today we see many exploitative practices in the form of wage theft, overtime violations etc. In many ways the freedom of business owners to do as they please means the lack of freedom of workers to work in good conditions.

[@DMSR76]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[@warnegoodman]

well said

[@iammrbeat]

Yep, the problems are systemic and we shouldn't assume workers have the "freedom" of contract when often they're not much more than slaves.

[@grben9959]

It also seems to me that selling one's labor should be considered commerce, which government is allowed to regulate. It's funny that this ruling stands after Wickard v. Filburn

[@warnegoodman]

@@grben9959 Yeah I would disagree with Mr. Beat that the ruling has never been overturned, because if you read Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc, the Supreme Court is quite explicit in its dismissal of a freedom to contract argument, essentially just saying "we don't do that kind of thing anymore".

[@GojiMet86]

Pretty interesting (or depressing) to hear about Henry Weismann, who had previously supported the Bakeshop Act that gave workers the right not to work more than 60 hours a week, but was now defending Lochner the shop-owner after Weismann himself became a business owner. It reminds me of playing baseball games during GM mode (where you are the General Manager running the team and finances) and during career mode (you playing as an actual player). When you're the GM, you're incentivized to lower the dollar value of an offer, and your payroll, as much as possible, while as a player you seek the highest value. And it comes almost automatically. Self-interest can really blind people to forgetting about their own past experiences and to stop empathizing with others with less.

[@iammrbeat]

Well put. When I become a landlord I will never forget the workers. lol Just kidding, I'm never becoming a landlord...I'm a Millennial.

[@TNOBasedBatov]

@@iammrbeat Awww mannnn that’s sad I would love to have you as landlord You seem pretty chill and stuff Haha- Just kidding… I’m Gen Z- (sorry for this terrible joke that doesn’t even make sense I just can’t come up with anything else at the moment)

[@bandav_lohengrin]

The workers always had the right to not work 60 hours a week. Nobody forced them to work at the bakery, it was their individual choice to work there. Having to hire another set of workers to split the hours would have probably made the bakery unprofitable so they would be unemployed, not exactly what the workers want

[@kageisuke]

@@bandav_lohengrin And that's how companies/corporations get around paying their workers more and giving them humane conditions. "They don't HAVE to work here. They can ALWAYS work somewhere else." Yet they try to leave and get blacklisted in their profession by their employer or now-a-days it was non-compete clauses that prevented you from getting another job in your field for so long you'll starve or have to get a job out of your field, and hope when you can go back that they won't punish you with lesser pay for your skills being defunct. When someone has your money in their hands, you don't have the power. They do. And they will crush you.

[@coolguyjki]

@@bandav_lohengrin You do realize that people have to work to make money, and that you need money to buy and eat food, yes? No one "chooses" to work and the vast majority of people who do actually work for a living just take what jobs are available. Have you ever actually worked with your hands a day in your life?

[@chillinvibin6057]

Omg Mr. Beat! I was a student of yours at Aubry Bend back in 2014. I can’t believe your channel has come so far! Your music and character made being in your class a true joy. It made my day see your video roll though my feed. Thanks for being awesome!

[@iammrbeat]

Which Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?

[@evielikeshugs1055]

Bowers v. Hardwick

[@notchuckproductions5029]

Paramount Pictures V United States of America

[@hawtcookie9479]

Chisholm V. Georgia

[@thegreatempathizer4631]

Boomer V. Atlantic Cement Co. (Pwease)

[@surreal5444]

Do the fiery TEXAS v JOHNSON . Controversial but many were stood with that.

[@luismaningat5909]

Thank you so much Mr. beat! Keep it up!

[@taljdwr9527]

It seems weird that this only has 105 views after 3 days. I only found this in the Supreme Court briefs playlist. There’s no KZbin recommendation despite me subscribing and KZbin regularly recommending me Mr. Beat’s other videos.

[@iammrbeat]

I had it up early for Patreon supporters and channel members and added it to the Supreme Court Briefs playlist early.

[@smert_ditto]

​@@iammrbeatthat makes sense, I was confused by this comment because it was posted before the video was made public according to the upload date that appeared to me

[@DRAGOTPROR]

Who cares i never know about this man Joseph Lochner but i am glad i came across this video!* Thank you Mister Beat!

[@taljdwr9527]

@@iammrbeat Ah I see. It has 20k views now. I thought you might be demonitized by the corporate friendly KZbin for pro-labor sentiment lol. Thank you!

[@larkiess]

Confused why the amount of hours worked mattered so much and not the actual conditions of the work place. I wonder what employees of the bake shop thought about this case.

[@warnegoodman]

A major goal of the legislation was that by reducing the amount of hours employees could work, it wouldn't just reduce the risks to their health, but it would force bakers to hire more employees and therefore drive up wages due to competition for labor.

[@iammrbeat]

Studies had already shown by that point that working long hours was detrimental to not only health, but also productivity. Yep, it actually HURT the economy for workers to work such long hours.

[@jplayzow]

@@iammrbeat There's only so much time in the day I can understand why they didn't get out a lot I'm assuming their day off was sunday because just about everything used to close on sundays so if you can't spend it there you might get even more stressed out

[@NuSpirit_]

@@iammrbeat Personally I think if someone wants to work 16 hours a day then they should be allowed to do so. But with obvious checks and stops for *if they want* not *if employer forces it*

[@PCDelorian]

@@NuSpirit_ No, because there is an inherent disparity in bargaining power and employers can force you to do anything, sure they can't force you, but they might make very obvious you'll be fired. There is a reason why most countries have maximum working hours and limits on employees ability to waive working rights, because if they can waive them they may as well not have them.

[@moses4769]

Supreme Court Briefs is my favorite series!!! I love that you continue it even though it doesn't get as much views as your other videos.

[@quatreunhuit]

Mr. Beat, the supreme court briefs are my favorite serie of yours. You make them so fun and interessting!

[@MrTreeman125]

Hey Mr. Beat! I really dig these Supreme Court Briefs and all your content in general! Keep up the great work!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you, Breton!

[@nationsquid]

Supreme Court Briefs is my favorite series on your channel. Such great information and you explain it so well! Thanks for making these!

[@Steppa561]

Okay

[@GoodlySumVideos]

Hi Mr. Beat, these videos helped me thru my political science studies, I can’t wait to teach!

[@tacotuesdayy9264]

Great video Mr. Beat, love this series!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you!

[@amongstus4418]

Why didn't Lochner just get around all this legal trouble and just not pay his employees while they were sleeping?

[@dannycolliflower7868]

You can't make someone be somewhere without paying them

[@iammrbeat]

@@dannycolliflower7868 Danny got it

[@kevincronk7981]

​@Danny Colliflower he could've not forced them to be there and simply provided the beds if they wanted them,

[@Compucles]

@@dannycolliflower7868 Wouldn't it still be more convenient for the workers to avoid the extra commute even without the extra money?

[@MrBlazemaster525]

Wouldn't the provision of facilities be construed as a benefit in kind? Just asking

[@trentsivils]

I’ll take credit for recommending this Mr. Beat. Also, it’s noteworthy that this is a key point of controversy in due process interpretation. This precedent of “substantive due process” allowed other cases enforcing liberties not found in the Constitution using the due process clause like Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Though used for conservative purposes here, more conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas have been critical of this line of thinking.

[@ExemplaryTurtle]

KZbin at it again, I have all notis on, and didn’t find out about this video for two days until I listened to the whole series at work

[@iammrbeat]

I only had it up early for Patreon supporters and channel members and then added it to the Supreme Court Briefs playlist early, so that's probably why you didn't see it!

[@isntitiRONic911]

Great video as always, Mr. Beat. Americans sometimes forget just how consequential the Supreme Court is.

[@Fika_Break]

Think Americans these days are well aware how much power the court holds.

[@michaelsurratt1864]

Women don't anymore

[@victoriabaker6943]

I loved this presentation! Back then more than just bakers worked more than 60 hours per week. Both my grandparents were immigrants, they didn’t care, so long as they had money in the bank

[@iammrbeat]

Of course. I worked 70 hour weeks there for awhile. I've got it down to 55 lately!

[@victoriabaker6943]

@@iammrbeat 5 hours! That means you make week night dinner -maybe. You deserve an extra large chocolate bunny & jelly belly’s

[@Compucles]

@@iammrbeat How do you even manage to anything done other than work, eat, and sleep with those kinds of work hours?! Even if you throw away all hobbies and other recreational activities, people still need to clean up after themselves, manage their finances, prepare or buy their meals, and do other necessary chores.

[@ethereal231]

@@Compucles That's the neat thing, you don't.

[@herbertvonbismarck8303]

If we really think about it, this case led to a lot of abuses in the future especially the whole crunch time situation in the gaming industry. the Activision Blizzard case may cause another supreme court case hearing or something else will lead to the supreme court questioning the legality of crunch time

[@iammrbeat]

I need to learn more about this.

[@Jamcad01]

Don't know why people act like the video game industry is the only employment sector with a lot of overtime. Heaps of professions like lawyers, professional accounting, doctors etc all have year round and constant overtime. It's not for everybody, and the effects on whether it's actually productive can be debated of course, but the video game industry isn't unusual by any means.

[@Compucles]

The real issue is when the companies don't pay time and a half (or worse, not pay for the extra hours at all) for all that overtime. They still wouldn't like it, but I bet game developers are more willing to accept crunch time if they get much fatter paychecks than usual out of it.

[@shy9954]

I like your Supreme Court briefs, even as a foreigner. They essentially break down what would otherwise be a hard Wikipedia read. Maybe you could do some New Deal cases where the Three Musketeers fought against the Four Horsemen? I know you already touched on some of the cases of the Hughes court, but I think some of these battles were pretty intense!

[@rin_etoware_2989]

this case definitely should've hinged on "isn't this basically paid leave" edit: or maybe even "i'm paying them to sleep, is that what bakeshops do? nope, which means the hours in question don't count"

[@iammrbeat]

Narrowly, you have a stronger case. Broadly, the Court got this one wrong, in my opinion.

[@alexanderwinn2896]

Great presentation, thoroughly enjoyed it.

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you, Alexander!

[@alexanderwinn2896]

@@iammrbeat To be fair, I did ask for Lochner to be the next SCOTUS brief after your last vid, so perhaps I'm a bit more biased than usual on this (zero clue if this had any influence, very unlikely). Nonetheless, pretty fair review of what the Court said and the facts including all of the twists.

[@Arccosyne]

Woo Mr. Beat talks about my home town and not only that, he pronounced all the local names correctly!

[@iammrbeat]

Holy crap. Well I guess I get pronunciations correct every now and then. lol

[@malafunkshun8086]

Very interesting case, Beat! Aloha 🇺🇸🤙🏼

[@RoibZ]

This was the video of all time especially the part where Mr. beat said "it's beating time" and beat all over the place

[@iammrbeat]

Good summary

[@RoibZ]

@@iammrbeat thanks I tried my best 😁

[@luisfilipe2023]

Really interesting case. Love this series as always

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks Luís!

[@appleman1333]

How did you comment 2 days ago?

[@luisfilipe2023]

@@appleman1333 I kid you not I received notification for this video 2 days ago not sure how

[@JustAnderw]

I don't nessesarily agree with this one. It makes sense for New York to be able to regulate the commerce that takes place within its borders. 60 hours is a pretty reasonable upper cap in my opinion, still allowing 20 overtime hours over top a full work week. You could probably make a pretty compelling argument that 60+ hours a week can be detrimental to a workers health.

[@abrahamlincoln937]

Interesting Supreme Court case and good video, Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks buddy

[@abrahamlincoln937]

@@iammrbeat No problem!

[@HarvestStore]

Great video.

[@mrsolarsun7174]

You should do Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City next, as it literally saved New York City's Grand Central Station from being demolished.

[@riotwire]

I'm an adult now but school was always a crappy experience for me. I had trouble in certain subjects and trouble making friends, I spent most of the day wanting it to be over. But I always looked forward to history class. I actually had a fun time and sometimes it was my favorite time of my entire day (even after I left school) it was the only thing I've missed from my school days, and regular documentaries didn't really fill that gap for me. I'm very thankful for this channel because it brings me back to my favorite part of high school :)

[@joshuahawkins9847]

I suggested this thank you!!

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yes

[@deaitch]

Thank you, you’re helping me do my project

[@Token_Nerd]

This is the part that didn't make much sense to me, its clear the burden of proof for safety should be on the employer to prove to courts, but even if it was, couldn't Lochner make the argument that the 60-hour baking limits were satisfied given that half at least a third of a person's shift was for sleeping?

[@Vampirat3]

This mans national history lessons are outstanding , Mr. Beat , will you hold historical rhetoric more on this? I wish I had a book or had it organized for later.

[@promiscuous675]

Thank you.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks for watching!

[@paxdamaxgaming4920]

Haven’t heard of this case before, interesting

[@iammrbeat]

It was a pretty big freaking deal. :)

[@ethansep]

Mr Brest give me money

[@tylerhackner9731]

Workers rights based

[@iammrbeat]

Just remember all those worker reforms came during the Lochner Era, a time when courts were unfriendly to worker rights!

[@tylerhackner9731]

@@iammrbeat true!

[@misscocogameplay4572]

Oh hey!!! I live in utica!~ We still talk about this case today! Where his bakery was, there is a plaque about it!

[@iammrbeat]

I must visit now!

[@luisfilipe2023]

I really don’t understand why so much American jurisprudence takes due process to mean anything other then “unless there’s a law saying we can we can’t punish you” that’s literally all legal due process means nothing more

[@iammrbeat]

This is a really profound point.

[@warnegoodman]

That's what jusice Thomas would say, but that really runs afoul of the 9th amendment, which explicitly states that just because some rights are listed in the constitution doesn't mean that's ALL the rights that are protected. So obviously the framers of the constitution believed that there were additional rights that the government is required to protect. So when the 14A says the government cannot restrict your liberty without due process, it makes sense to say that's what it's referring to, the enumerated rights, and the ones not enumerated.

[@fanfan1184]

I habe become increasingly convinced that the 14th ist just poorly writen. I agree with you on what due prozess means, this Interpretation just makes it utterly meaningless. Since then all right (Not mentioned elsewhere) can be restricted by simply passing a law, thus muting the point of a constitution.

[@luisfilipe2023]

@@warnegoodman i agree that there are certain lines that shouldn’t be crossed for tradition and like you said the 9th amendment (though it arguably only limits the power of the federal government). That said the power of the state to restrict liberty or property is indisputable. That’s every law ever. To deny a state legitimacy to do that is to deny the very concept of state power

[@luisfilipe2023]

@@fanfan1184 not quite. It still protects individuals from arbitrary use of state power (the president can send you to jail for life because he feels like it like a king would for example). Also the constitution specifically mentions cases where the law cannot intervene like religion or appropriation without compensation etc. Where to draw the line is obviously a controversial issue but it’s important to remember that the legislative process is subject to popular elections. A law arbitrarily denying people’s established rights would almost certainly be unpopular and thus unlikely to be passed by elected politicians. The court on the other hand is effectively a monarchy of nine. I’m not sure if we should really fear a dictatorship of our elected and accountable hundreds of politicians more then we should fear a dictatorship of the gavel. The judicial branch was always meant to be weaker then the other two

[@CustodiesVito]

MORE OF THESE

[@sergioventura2595]

I’m from Utica and I’ve never heard of the Bakeshop Act- Lochner

[@iammrbeat]

UTICA REPRESENT. How do you like living there?

[@sergioventura2595]

@@iammrbeat It was a steamed hams reference

[@Arccosyne]

@@sergioventura2595 It's more of an Albany reference...

[@sergioventura2595]

@@Arccosyne Nice

[@tomhalla426]

“Substantive due process” was a partial climb down from the Slaughterhouse Cases, that gutted the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Controversially, that doctrine allows judges a great deal of discretion as to which rights they want to recognize. In Lochner, it was right wingers, in Roe v Wade it was the left.

[@fanfan1184]

This is a great take. Judicial decisions based on due process habe basicly taken the place of actual laws for a long time

[@iammrbeat]

Nailed it. The 14th Amendment has a long history of being conveniently interpreted.

[@warlord95Sweden]

The big problem here is that the defendant was not en employee being charged for working to much, but a employer. Ofc you can not punish someone for working to much, but you should definitely be able to regulate how much a organisation make a private person work!

[@andrasfogarasi5014]

Of course you can punish someone for working too much. And it has the same effect of banning long hours.

[@SiVlog1989]

Must be honest, when I heard about this case, given the context of the era, the Progressive Era, I was surprised the Court ruled the way it did. Still fascinating nonetheless, especially as my surname is "Baker"

[@iammrbeat]

So your ancestors were all bakers then? :)

[@SiVlog1989]

@Mr. Beat well, there're certainly a few Bakers, after all, there was a Baker who served as Secretary of State under George HW Bush, James Baker

[@davidnotonstinnett]

The Supreme Court was the conservative branch at the time.

[@evielikeshugs1055]

Love this series

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you Evie!

[@bryanhenderson1054]

I looked up Mr beast but you popped up so you just got a new sub

[@Stoneworks]

SUPREME COURT BRIEFS MORE LIKE SUPREME COURT TIGHTY WHITIES LMAO GOTTEMM

[@David-bh1rn]

Got em

[@iammrbeat]

That has a nice flow to it.

[@Mr.GlitchInfinity]

When Mr beat uploads when I’m watching Mr beat

[@ethano512]

2:22 good to see a local place on mr beat

[@gabe75001]

6:22 I'm amazed at how timeless some of these opinions are. If you told me this was written today, I would believe it.

[@macmacreynolds8712]

Have you done one yet on Hammer v. Dagenhart aka the Child Labor Case of 1918? You should also do one on United States v. Midwest Oil Co., aka the Presidential Powers Case of 1915, aka the Wyoming Oil Case of 1915.

[@alexist9705]

Please do a supreme court briefs on Dobbs V Jackson

[@atrevolutionwiththomaspain68]

You should make a video about the Jones Act and tariffs

[@iammrbeat]

That's actually been on my to-do list for awhile.

[@gabrielmorla2934]

more city comparisons please

[@NYXBAR]

Thank you for pronouncing laissez-faire correctly. My high school history teacher was one of those "lazzay-faire" folk

[@JeremiahSpeaks]

Mr. Beat, can you do a video brief about the twinkie defense case? I forget the true name. I love your videos my friend

[@gFamWeb]

How does the commerce clause apply (or not apply) in these situations? Also, if one can contract for as many hours as they desire (thus, it cannot be restricted), would it not then follow that one could contract for whatever wage they desire, thus it cannot be restricted?

[@EventHoriXZ0n]

It’s kinda refreshing to see that New York State has always disregarded the Constitution. The Bakeshop Act sounds remarkably modern. I’ll never open up a business here, but it’s nice to know I guess I never would have wanted to.

[@PenelopeStoneVT]

Obviously a terrible decision, but I will say that paying your workers during the times they sleep or any form of break seems alien compared to the modern era where they won't pay you for a half hour lunch break.

[@iammrbeat]

We live in a dystopian era. Some of the comments underneath this video are astounding. We shouldn't be used to working all the time in this country.

[@kimobrien.]

Instead of relying on politicians you need to use union power to set on the job wages and hours. Boss didn't get away with half the crap they pull at these modern day sweatshops.

[@kurtbainee]

Mr.beat gimme money

[@petermj1098]

You should make videos on the three Industrial Revolutions in America and the major inventions in the eras

[@Alaskanative371]

Can you do a video on the Comstock Lode?

[@bluespaceman7937]

Nice history lesson.

[@Dr.Schlitz]

The significance of Lochner is its place in the Court’s evolving separation of powers jurisprudence, not in any judgment about the merits of the particular NY State law that was the subject of the decision.

[@Dr.Schlitz]

You should have said more about the effective nullification of Lochner in the 1930s.

[@seancoyote]

When I applied to Panera about 10 years ago as a manager. There was an expectation that managers worked 60 to 80 hours a week for salary and no overtime. With what they were offering me as salary, I would be working for less than the local hourly wage, and less than the national minimum wage with overtime. So Panera isn't better.

[@codyyarger1444]

I WAS WAITING FOR ANOTHER ONE LOL

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yeah

[@trevinbeattie4888]

Out of curiosity, how much is the difference between employing 1 person for 60 hours versus 2 people for 30 hours each? Other than the HR paperwork.

[@GOODYGOODGOOD789]

Laws like the 60 hour workweek didn't hurt people forming contracting their own labor because it just restricted what contracts did exist it did not make it so that people could enter whatever contracts they wanted just ones that were legal but people still had the freedom to sign it.

[@roberteltze4850]

In New York names their courts differently. Their supreme court is a collection of county courts that are trial courts. Above that they have appeals courts which are the courts of last resort and are where you would find what most of us consider a supreme court.

[@jackschroeder8632]

Lol fun timing I just ready this case yesterday for con law. Since the 40s I think the court has struck down a total of 1 law regulating “economic rights” like this one, so while not officially overruled, it effectively had been

[@mattsains]

To me, this seems like a thing where workplace protection laws prevented a better situation for workers from being possible. Splitting a shift with sleep seems kinda genius especially since you are getting paid during that time. That way, the baker gets workers when he needs them, and workers get paid more for the same amount of work. I’m assuming you weren’t required to be at the bakery during nap time

[@iammrbeat]

Unless you're paid a low wage. :/

[@mattsains]

True, I guess I’m coming from the perspective of a state with a reasonably high minimum wage

[@mattsains]

To be clear I’m not saying the law was bad just that it sounds like it’s possible for it to be a sweet deal

[@sweden5665]

Do you have any legal training? You make the cases sound interesting to people who are not able to parse the legalese.

[@9fmradisapratama]

"The measure of a man is what he does with power." - Plato

[@kjorlaug1]

It hasn't been overturned, but has been essentially nullified via the various labor laws passed in the early-mid 20th century...though, sadly, those are being undermined

[@devingiles6597]

Hey, Mr. Beat! You should definitely do a Supreme Court Briefs video on United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. It was the antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own movie theaters and holding exclusivity rights on which theaters would show the movies. What you do you think about this case, Mr. Beat? Please do a video on it!

[@iammrbeat]

I actually already wrote a script for that one, so it's definitely happening at some point.

[@devingiles6597]

@@iammrbeat Yay! I can't wait for this video to drop.

[@jeremiahcooper376]

I went to college with several people from Utica!! (I live in Rochester, NY)

[@jeremiahcooper376]

I drive by that appellate court building all the time!!

[@nullenski]

Hey Mr. beat! I know you’ve reached privately but if you would be able to spread awareness about whats happening with your buddy @Vlogging through History, i know chris would appreciate it. I hope your day is going well Mr. beat and I hope this finds you at a good time!

[@777Eliyahu]

Lochner is either some weird convergence between common law notions of inherent personal liberty with the 14th Amendment, or covert judicial activism. The irony of Holmes' dissent is that he championed judicial positivism which seems to suggest that if those with the instruments of power make a decree such as this then are justified in doing so regardless of whether it is coherent within the wider body of jurisprudence.

[@bluebelle_thenerd]

Interesting how people have "the right to choose their own contract" but resident physicians in this country can't choose their own jobs AND they sometimes HAVE to work 80+ hours a week 🤔 Sounds unconstitutional asf

[@TheMask78981]

Hey mr. beat how do you get a lot of subscribers?

[@homer4635]

I go to college in Utica, NY.

[@divyanshusingh7124]

What is interesting to me is that there was a time when we had folks named White, Brown, and Day on the scotus.

[@msitts98]

No way, I’m from (and still live in) the Utica area and never knew about this. There is a lot of history in this area.

[@johnbrighton7813]

Could the court at this time make a narrow ruling? Did they have that power? Cause a narrow ruling could be one that would apply solely to arrangements like Lochner’s wherein the hours were permitted provided provisions were made for workers like the beds Lochner’s employees slept in?

[@thestrangeguy6084]

If we set aside the context of the case, someone who never passed the bar arguing succesfully before the supreme court is a mighty impressive achievement, especially as late as 1905.

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yeah it was

[@Secretsofsociety]

I worked jobs where I slept at work. I liked that I didn't have to commute and I was doing 12 hour days so 3 days was just a little under full time. Had the rest of the week to myself.

[@elitn6160]

I would love muller v. Oregon

[@JohnBrown-pq9tj]

This channel is on point covering the worst SCOTUS decisions in history.

[@imperators_8700]

This decision is a tough one for me Politically, I would say that I am against regulating the number of hours someone can work But judicially, this case’s decision really does seem to be stretching the 14th amendment far beyond its text

[@anthonyminimum]

Do Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, the case that overturned Roe V Wade

[@sebanderson]

This is such a great case because it was later used to overturn Roe and Casey. The Lochner ruling proves that full bodily autonomy is not a constitutional right. I cannot work for less than minimum wage, even if choose to do so. It's up to federal, state, and local governments to set limits, even if it upsets me, the individual, and imposes on my freedoms. Likewise with abortion.

[@iammrbeat]

Who needs bodily autonomy amirite

[@sebanderson]

@@iammrbeat complete bodily autonomy means no government enforced labor laws. 🤷‍♂️

[@kengeejr]

Lochner is garbage because it substitutes the political will of unelected judges and Justices over that of the people’s duly elected representatives in the legislature

[@Compucles]

The problem with this so-called "liberty of contract" is that it's very easy for employers to strike unofficial alliances to essentially force poor working conditions on employees with no alternative ways to earn a decent living in your field, similar to how underhandedly formed monopolies and trusts forced unfair prices on consumers simply because there were no reasonable alternatives, yet we all agree that the latter needed to be regulated. Although part of it is due to values dissonance, there are still issues in Japan with employers taking unfair advantage of their employees and sometimes even brazenly flouting their own labor laws while most employees don't bother fighting back.

[@jingles123456789ify]

While Lochner has not been officially overturned, it almost certainly is not good law anymore.