Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=754190
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (655)



 


 



Some Varieties and Vicissitudes of Lochnerism


Barry Cushman


Notre Dame Law School

2005

Boston University Law Review, Vol. 85, 881-1000, 2005
Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 1314

Abstract:     
This article is a contribution to the Lochner Centennial Symposium at Boston University School of Law. Until recently, a consensus appeared to be emerging among constitutional historians concerning how best to interpret Lochner-era decisions involving Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to state and federal economic regulation. After decades during which the Court's jurisprudence had been characterized as the product of a reactionary judiciary's commitments to Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics, more recent scholars had come to see the Court's police powers decisions as animated by what Professor Howard Gillman has called the principle of neutrality. On this view, the Court's jurisprudence is best understood as erecting a series of obstacles to "class," "special," "partial," or "unequal" legislation, "legislation that could not be regarded as public-regarding because it benefited certain interest groups or took from A to give to B." Recently, however, two articles have challenged this emerging consensus. Professor Robert Post and Professor David Bernstein each have contended that the salience of the principle of neutrality in Lochner-era jurisprudence has been considerably overestimated, and in fact does comparatively little to explain the Court's decisions. These commentators instead prefer to characterize the decisions as efforts to secure zones of individual liberty and autonomy constitutionally insulated from intrusive government supervision. In Part I of this essay, I examine the arguments of each and seek to discern what, if anything, might be salvaged of the consensus view in the face of their critiques. In Part II, I examine a series of lesser-known decisions of the New Deal era to help elucidate the multiplicity of positions that justices of the period took on questions of judicial enforcement of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment limitations on economic regulation. This examination is designed in turn to help evaluate another widely shared view: that the Lochner era came to an end with the Supreme Court's decision in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in the spring of 1937.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 121

Keywords: Lochner, constitutional history, substantive due process

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: July 8, 2005 ; Last revised: April 30, 2013

Suggested Citation

Cushman, Barry, Some Varieties and Vicissitudes of Lochnerism (2005). Boston University Law Review, Vol. 85, 881-1000, 2005; Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 1314. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=754190

Contact Information

Barry Cushman (Contact Author)
Notre Dame Law School ( email )
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,212
Downloads: 145
Download Rank: 121,140
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  655

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.297 seconds