Lochner v. New York

E54705

United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case labor law case landmark decision

Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (7)

Label	Occurrences
Lochner era	11
Lochner v. New York canonical	10
Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York	1
Lochner era Supreme Court	1
Lochner era jurisprudence	1
Lochner era of Supreme Court jurisprudence	1
Lochner v. New York dissent	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T434616 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Lochner v. New York
Context triple: [Due Process Clause, interpretedInCase, Lochner v. New York]

A. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. is a landmark 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld federal power to regulate labor relations, marking a major expansion of Congress’s authority over interstate commerce.
B. Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
C. United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
D. United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
E. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Lochner v. New York
Target entity description: Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.

A. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. is a landmark 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld federal power to regulate labor relations, marking a major expansion of Congress’s authority over interstate commerce.
B. Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
C. United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
D. United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
E. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (52)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ labor law case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
areaOfLaw	economic regulation ⓘ labor regulation ⓘ
argued	1904-02-23 ⓘ 1904-02-24 ⓘ
citation	198 U.S. 45 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Due Process Clause ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
criticizedFor	invalidating social and economic legislation ⓘ judicial activism ⓘ
decidingCourt	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1905-04-17 ⓘ
decisionType	5–4 decision ⓘ
dissentBy	Edward Douglass White ⓘ John Marshall Harlan ⓘ Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ William R. Day ⓘ
eraNamedAfterCase	Lochner v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Lochner era
fullCaseName	Lochner v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York
hasJurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
holding	New York law limiting bakers to 60 hours of work per week and 10 hours per day violates the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ freedom of contract is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
impact	constrained state police power over economic regulation during the Lochner era ⓘ
influenced	jurisprudence on economic liberty ⓘ
issue	constitutionality of maximum-hours legislation for bakers ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	David J. Brewer ⓘ Henry Billings Brown ⓘ John Marshall Harlan ⓘ surface form: John Marshall Harlan (not in majority; remove) Joseph McKenna ⓘ Melville W. Fuller ⓘ
legalDoctrine	freedom of contract ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ
locationOfLowerCourt	New York ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Rufus W. Peckham ⓘ
namedAfter	Joseph Lochner ⓘ
overturnedStatute	New York Bakeshop Act ⓘ
pageInUnitedStatesReports	45 ⓘ
party	Joseph Lochner ⓘ Government of the State of New York ⓘ surface form: People of the State of New York
relatedCase	Adkins v. Children’s Hospital ⓘ Muller v. Oregon brief ⓘ surface form: Muller v. Oregon Nebbia v. New York ⓘ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish ⓘ
subjectOf	extensive scholarly commentary ⓘ
subsequentHistory	limited and repudiated by later Supreme Court decisions ⓘ
symbolizes	judicial protection of economic liberty against regulation ⓘ limits on government regulation of business ⓘ
topic	bakers’ working hours ⓘ
volumeOfUnitedStatesReports	198 ⓘ
yearDecided	1905 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (26)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Due Process Clause → interpretedInCase → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. → notableWork → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner v. New York dissent

George Sutherland → memberOf → Lochner v. New York ⓘ

this entity surface form: Lochner era Supreme Court

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. → era → Lochner v. New York ⓘ