Notes
introduction
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873).
Historians typically cite the following state cases: In re Jacobs, 98 N.Y. 98
(1885) (invalidating a law regulating the production of cigars), Ritchie v. People,
40 N.E. 454 (Ill. 1895) (invalidating a law that limited women to a maximum of
eight hours of daily factory labor), and Godcharles v. Wigeman, 6 A. 354 (Pa.
1885) (invalidating a law requiring cash payment of wages). However, there
were many other cases where the courts favored the principles expressed in the
Slaughter-House dissent over those of the majority. E.g., Joseph v. Randolph, 71
Ala. 499, 508 (1882); State v. Moore, 18 S.E. 342, 345 (N.C. 1893).
On cases involving the Chinese, see Charles J. McClain, In Search of Equality:
The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth Century America
(1996); David E. Bernstein, ‘‘Lochner, Parity, and the Chinese Laundry Cases,’’
41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211 (1999); Thomas Wuil Joo, ‘‘New ‘Conspiracy
Theory’ of The Fourteenth Amendment: Nineteenth Century Chinese Civil
Rights Cases and the Development of Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence,’’
29 U.S.F. L. Rev. 353 (1995).
198 U.S. 45 (1905).
See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 959–61 (1992) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 406–509 (1994) (Stevens, J.,
dissenting); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 605–7 (1995) (Souter, J.
dissenting).
See Lochner, 198 U.S. at 75 (Holmes, J. dissenting) (criticizing Lochner majority
for deciding the case based ‘‘upon an economic theory which a large part of the
country does not entertain’’); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The
Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment 249–82 (1977); Robert Bork,
The Tempting of America 36–49 (1990); John Hart Ely, Democracy and Dis-
trust: A Theory of Judicial Review 14–21 (1980); William G. Ross, A Muted
Fury: Populists, Progressives, and Labor Unions Confront the Courts, 1890–
1937, at 42 (1994); Aviam Soifer, ‘‘The Paradox of Paternalism and Laissez-
Faire Constitutionalism: United States Supreme Court, 1888–1921,’’ 5 L. &
Hist. Rev. 249, 250 (1987).
For works attacking Lochnerian jurists for their purported Social Darwinism,
see, e.g., Richard Hofstader, Social Darwinism in American Thought 5–6 (rev.
ed. 1955); Clyde E. Jacobs, Law Writers and the Courts: The Influence of
Thomas E. Cooley, Christopher G. Tiedeman, and John F. Dillon upon Ameri-
can Constitutional Law 24 (1954); Paul Kens, Judicial Power and Reform Poli-
tics: The Anatomy of Lochner v. New York 5 (1990); Arnold M. Paul, Conser-
vative Crisis and the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar and Bench, 1887–1895
Previous Page Next Page