In 1903 Oregon passed a law limiting the number of hours a women could work in a laundry to ten a day. Laundry owner Curt Muller sued, claiming that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the "liberty to contract" of bakery owners and their employees. Like Lochner, Muller cited the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and claimed that it protects an individualís right to buy and sell their labor freely. In this case, the court ruled 9-0 that the law was constitutional and should be upheld.
Notice the factual similarities between the Muller and Lochner cases.
How can one account for the different rulings?
JUSTICE BREWER:
The single question is the Constitutionality of the statute under which the defendant was convicted so far as it affects the work of a female in a laundry....
That a womanís 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... continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the [female] body, and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race....
Differentiated by these matters from the [male] sex, [woman] is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessary for men and could not be sustained. It is impossible to close oneís eyes to the fact that she still looks to her brother and depends upon him.... She is so constituted that she will rest upon and look to him for protection; that her physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal functions having in view not merely her own health, but the well-being of the race justify legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man. The limitations that this statute places upon her contractual powers... are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all.... The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor... the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her....
Without questioning in any respect the decision in Lochner v. New York,
we are of the opinion that... the act in question... [does not violate
the 14th Amendment] of the Federal Constitution, so far it respects the
work of a female in a laundry....