Difference between revisions of "Lochner v. New York"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
It is generally regarded as anticanon and although some [[libertarians]] have praised it, [[conservatives]] such as Judge [[Robert Bork]]<ref>https://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/42/4209-conservative-judicial-activism-is-just-as-objectionable-as-liberal-judicial-activism</ref>and Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] have criticized it as a rare example of [[conservative]] [[judicial activism]]. | It is generally regarded as anticanon and although some [[libertarians]] have praised it, [[conservatives]] such as Judge [[Robert Bork]]<ref>https://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/42/4209-conservative-judicial-activism-is-just-as-objectionable-as-liberal-judicial-activism</ref>and Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] have criticized it as a rare example of [[conservative]] [[judicial activism]]. | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 18:57, December 24, 2020
In Lochner v. New York (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a law of New York that prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours a day, or more than 60 hours a week. This ruling stood as a precedent for decades against government regulation of the workplace, until the late 1930s when Justices appointed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt comprised a majority for upholding regulations of the New Deal.
It is generally regarded as anticanon and although some libertarians have praised it, conservatives such as Judge Robert Bork[1]and Justice Antonin Scalia have criticized it as a rare example of conservative judicial activism.