Adkins v. Children's Hospital

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Adkins v. Children's Hospital
ArgueDate=March 14
ArgueYear=1923
DecideDate=April 9
DecideYear=1923
FullName=Adkins et al., constituting the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia; same v. Willie Lyons
USVol=261
USPage=525
Citation=43 S. Ct. 394; 67 L. Ed. 785; 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2588; 24 A.L.R. 1238
Prior=Dismissed, D.C. Supreme Court; reversed and remanded, 284 F. 613 (D.C. Cir. 1922)
Subsequent=None
Holding=Minimum wage law for women violated the due process right to contract freely. D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.
SCOTUS=1923-1925
Majority=Sutherland
JoinMajority=McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler
Dissent=Taft
JoinDissent=Sanford
Dissent2=Holmes
NotParticipating=Brandeis
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amends. V, XIX; Minimum Wage Law of the District of Columbia, 40 Stat. 960 (1918)
Overruled="West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish", 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

"Adkins v. Children's Hospital", ussc|261|525|1923, is a Supreme Court opinion holding that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Court opinion, by Justice Sutherland, held that previous decisions ("Muller v. Oregon", 208 U.S. 412 (1908) and "Bunting v. Oregon", 243 U.S. 426 (1917)) did not overrule the holding in "Lochner v. New York", 198 U.S. 45 (1905), protecting freedom of contract. The "Muller" cases, Sutherland noted, addressed maximum hours; this case addressed a minimum wage. The maximum hour laws left the parties free to negotiate about wages, unlike this law. Moreover, the minimum wage artificially restricts the employer’s side of the negotiation. The Court argued that if legislatures were permitted to set minimum wage laws, they would be permitted to set maximum wage laws.

Chief Justice Taft, dissenting, argued that there was no distinction between minimum wage laws and maximum hour laws, considering that these essentially both add up to restrictions on the contract. He noted that "Lochner"’s limitations had appeared to be overruled in Muller and Bunting.

Justice Holmes, also dissenting, noted that there were plenty of other constraints on contract (e.g. blue laws, usury laws, etc.). He cited the reasonable person standard he had put forth in "Lochner": if a reasonable person could see a power in the Constitution, the Court ought to defer to legislation using that power.

"Adkins" was overturned in "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish", 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court Cases

Further reading

*cite book |title=Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights: Milestone to Equality |last=Cushman |first=Clare |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2001 |publisher=Congressional Quarterly |location=Washington, DC |isbn=1568026145 |pages=19–20
*cite book |title=Bound by our Constitution: Women, Workers, and the Minimum Wage |last=Hart |first=Vivien |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1994 |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton, NJ |isbn=069103480X |pages=
*cite journal |last=Zimmerman |first=Joan G. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1991 |month= |title=The Jurisprudence of Equality: The Women's Minimum Wage, the First Equal Rights Amendment, and "Adkins v. Children's Hospital", 1905-1923 |journal=Journal of American History |volume=78 |issue=1 |pages=188–225 |doi=10.2307/2078093 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

* [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/261/525.html Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com]
* [http://law.jrank.org/pages/13592/Adkins-v-Children-s-Hospital.html Adkins v. Children's Hospital]