This case in B&G, pp. 35-42.
Recent Posts
- Protected: 46 The Implications of Intersectionality on Southeast Asian Female Students’ Educational Outcomes in the United States: A Critical Quantitative Intersectionality Analysis
- Protected: 45 Gender, Ethnicity and Political Agency South Asian Women Organizing (book with 7 chapters, pick one chapter)
- Protected: 43. South Asian Women’s Identities: A Media and Personal Narrative Analysis
- Protected: Critical Race Theory (CRT)
- Protected: “You’re So Exotic Looking”: An Intersectional Analysis of Asian American and Pacific Islander Stereotypes
Recent Comments
- Renata Winchell on Protected: Black Women’s Resistance to Sexual Violence
- Renata Winchell on Protected: Violence Against Women–[TED]
- Renata Winchell on Protected: Legalized rape is a constitutional thing…
- Renata Winchell on Protected: U.S. Rape Culture is Sidelining and Silencing Future Female Leaders
- Mariana Lillig on Protected: Linda Greene. 17. Race in the Twenty-First Century: Equality Through Law? 292
Archives
- February 2025
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- November 2020
- June 2020
- March 2018
- July 2015
- June 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- June 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- July 2012
- April 2011
Adkins V. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Congress granted a fixed minimum for women and children in DC. Children’s Hospital claimed that this minimum wage violated the V Amendment of Due Process
The Supreme Court ruled that, indeed, this violated the 5th. Placing a minimum wage violates the right to bargain on contracts, which is a freedom under the Fifth Amendment Due Process.
This case is specifically the V and not the XIV amendment because D.C. is not a state. The XIV Amendment says “no state shall.”
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C. (1923)
Summary: The U.S. Congress granted a minimum wage for women and children working in the District of Columbia (D.C.). The Children’s Hospital in D.C. employed many women and filed a lawsuit because they believed the new minimum wage for women violated the Fifth Amendment.
Question: Does the new minimum wage law set by Congress violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause?
Holding: Yes, the minimum wage law set by Congress violates the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 19th Amendment had abolished the inequality of sexes, and thus special protection of women was deemed unnecessary.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
(1923)
Facts: A federal law set a minimum wage for women in Washington, D.C.
Issue: Did this law violate freedom of contract under the 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, it was unconstitutional.
Significance: Weakened minimum wage laws.
Case: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Facts: DC enacted a minimum wage law to ensure that women and children would not be exploited while working in hospitals. The Children’s Hospital believed that this law directly violated the liberty of contract, violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
Statement of issues: Was requiring women and children to receive minimum wage a violation of the due process clause under the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: 5-3 for the children’s hospital. The minimum wage is considered to be unconstitutional.
Reasoning: Since the liberty of contract is a protection in the constitution, the DC law was considered to interfere with the proper of contract and to overreach governmental authority. Dissenting: the government should have a role in regulating wages and protecting workers from exploitation. Additionally, the law aimed to improve working conditions.
Summary: This case set limitations on the government intervening in private labor agreements. This case also highlights the courts’ inability to help regulate intended protected workers.
Adkins v Children’s Hospital (1923)
261 US 525 (1923)
Facts:
A law was passed that placed a minimum wage for women and children who were employed in the District of Columbia, which the Children’s Hospital challenged. The Hospital argued that the law violated their freedom to contract, which would be how employees and employers could negotiate their wages without the government intervening in that arrangement, which is part of the 5th Amendment due process clause.
Issue:
Did the legislation passed, violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Decision/Action:
Yes
Reasoning:
The Court did not uphold the law since it did interfere with the freedom of contract between employers and employees. It was stated that adults should not be subject to government interference when negotiating wages. The Court also expressed concern about how minimum wage laws could hinder employment and be harmful to businesses.
Concurring Arguments:
none
Dissenting Arguments:
Justice Taft, Holmes, and Sanford
Voting Coalitions:
5-3
Title: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
Legal Citation: 261 US 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law to ensure a minimum wage for women and children working in the District of Columbia. D.C.’s Children’s Hospital employed many women and attempted to block the law by seeking an injunction. The trial court denied the injunction, but the intermediate appellate court later granted it.
Issues: Did the law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: Yes, the majority struck down the minimum wage law.
Reasoning: The Court relied on Lochner v. New York, which invalidated a law limiting bakers’ hours based on the belief in a constitutional right to “freedom to contract.” In Adkins, the Court applied this reasoning to strike down a minimum wage law, asserting that both employers and employees had the right to contract freely. The majority also argued that women did not require greater legal protections than men.
Case: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C.
Citation: 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, a District of Columbia statute created a minimum wage board, which was empowered to establish a minimum wage requirement for women and children looking to protect their well-being and provide a livable wage. The case was coupled with Adkins v. Lyons, Lyons and the Children Hospital of D.C. challenged the statute, claiming that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it restricted their liberty of contract. Lyons, a private citizen, worked at Congress Hall Hotell and believed she could not make any more money and would be fired if the minimum wage took effect. The Children’s Hospital of D.C. largely employed women, hence their challenge. Initially, the hospital’s injunction was denied but eventually approved in an appellate court. Leading the hospital to file suit against three Minimum Wage Board members, including Jesse Adkins.
Issue: Was the statute establishing the board an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rendering the minimum wage they set void?
Decision: Yes
Reasoning: Per Sutherland, J., the statute interferes with an employer and employee’s right to agree on a price for service. The Court believes that a “living wage” differs from person to person, so any minimum wage set is simply an opinion, and it ignores the necessities of the employer and only focuses on the employee. Furthermore, since the 19th Amendment was passed, there is no more justification for further restricting a woman’s liberties.
Significance: The Court argues that a minimum wage would be unconstitutional and implies that if they allow minimum wage requirements for women, it will eventually result in minimum wage requirements for men.
I. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C., 261 US 525 (1923)
II. A 1918 minimum wage law passed by Congress was intended for the women and children working in D.C to protect their health and provide a livable wage. The Children’s Hospital of D.C., an employer of many women, argued this law was against the 5th amendment’s due process clause.
III. Did the 1918 Congressional minimum wage law violate the 5th amendment’s due process doctrine?
IV. Yes (5-3), the law was struck down as unconstitutional.
V. Citing Lochner v. New York (1905), the court reasoned that worker’s freedom to contract with an employer shall not be impaired. The minimum wage law in this instance was infringing upon the women’s contract and right to work for the hospital as long as they desire.
The court also reasoned that women do not need special or greater protections than their male counterparts under the 19th amendment, which had established equality amongst the sexes.
VI. Significance: Sexist ideology and gender inequality was further reinforced through the court’s twisted jurisprudence in that because women now have a protection against infringements on their right to vote, that disregards any other existing inequities and exploitation against women, especially in the labor market and in regards to fair wages.
Case Name: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Citation: 261 U.S. 525
Facts:
In 1918, Congress passed a law establishing a minimum wage for women and children working in Washington, D.C. The law aimed to protect workers by ensuring fair compensation and preventing exploitative wages. The Children’s Hospital of D.C. and a female elevator operator challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by restricting freedom of contract between employers and employees.
Issue:
Did the Washington, D.C. minimum wage law for women violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by interfering with freedom of contract?
Holding:
Yes, the Supreme Court struck down the law, ruling that it was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of contract under the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning:
Justice Sutherland, writing for the majority, relied on the precedent set in Lochner v. New York (1905), arguing that freedom of contract was a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that since women had gained the right to vote through the Nineteenth Amendment, they should now be considered legally equal to men and not require special labor protections. The Court viewed the law as an unjustified government intrusion into private economic relationships, emphasizing that employers and employees should be free to negotiate wages without state interference.
Significance:
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital reinforced the Lochner Era’s pro-business stance, limiting government intervention in labor conditions. The ruling struck a major blow to the progressive movement, which had been advocating for labor protections, particularly for women and children. However, the decision was later overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which upheld minimum wage laws and marked the end of the Lochner Era. The shift in judicial philosophy during the New Deal era paved the way for broader labor protections and economic regulations.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Citation: 261 U.S. 252
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed an act establishing a Minimum Wage board that would be tasked with setting minimum wages for children and women “geared toward the necessary cost of living and adequate maintenance of those workers in good health and to protect their morals.” The Children’s Hospital of D.C. sought an injunction against the act as a large employer of women, which they were initially denied by the court, but granted in an intermediate appellate court. The Hospital then filed suit against three Minimum Wage board members, including Jesse Adkins, claiming that the statute violated workers’ rights granted by the Fifteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Issue(s): Does the Minimum Wage law violate the due process clause of the 15th Amendment?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: Relying heavily upon Lochner v. New York precedent, which struck down laws limiting the number of hours bakery an employee could work as a violation of freedom to contract, guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, the court again found that the law was in violation of the freedom to contract. Minimum wage laws interfere with employer and employee rights to contract however they please. Not only this, but the “price-fixing” of labor with the exclusion of men violated due process (equal protection under the law)
Summary/Significance: Established/recognized legal paradigm that women do not need additional legal protections and their capacity to contract their labor as men.
*5th
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law establishing a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia. The law aimed to protect women and minors from unfair wages by setting mandatory minimum compensation standards. Children’s Hospital and a female elevator operator challenged the law, arguing that it interfered with freedom of contract under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Issue: Does a law setting a minimum wage for women and children violate the freedom of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court held that the minimum wage law was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of contract under the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Court, in a 5-3 decision, ruled that the law improperly interfered with the liberty of contract. Citing Lochner v. New York (1905), the majority reasoned that individuals should be free to negotiate wages without government interference. The Court also argued that the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment (which granted women the right to vote) reinforced the idea that women should be treated equally under the law, rather than as a special class needing economic protection. However, Adkins was later overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
261 US 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children working in DC. DC’s children’s Hospital sought an injunction against enforcing the law, which was denied in the trial court but granted in the appellate court.
Issue: Did the minimum wage law violate the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause?
Holding: Yes, citing the “freedom to contract” from Lochner. Employers and employees had a constitutional right to contract however they pleased, and the minimum wage law interfered with that right.
NAME & LEGAL CITATION
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
261 US 525
FACTS
Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. D.C.’s Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, sought an injunction against enforcing the law.
QUESTION
Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
HOLDING
In a majority ruling, the Court struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional.
REASONING
The Court brought up Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting baker’s working hours under the Due Process Clause. In Adkins, the Court reasoned that the same reasoning extended to a minimum wage law. Whether employer or employee, they had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased, meaning that they believed the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom of contract.
I. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C.
II. 261 US 525 (1923)
III. Facts: In 1918, a Congress law guaranteed minimum wage to women and kids in DC’s Children’s Hospital- but the hospital later sought an injunction against the Wage Board as it claim the law violated the 5th’s Due Process. The injunction was denied in trial court, but granted in appeals.
IV. Issues: Did the Congressional law violate the 5th?
V. Decision and Action: Yes in favor of the Hospital.
VI. Reasoning: Through Lochner’s freedom to contract right, the same reasoning applied to a minimum wage law. As such, the employer and employee had the right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. So a wage law would interfere with that freedom- and women do not merit greater protection than men.
VIII. Dissenting, Per Taft, Holmes, and Sandford: Congress had the policing power to correct recognizable evils and thus the law did not violate the 5th.
IX. Summary: Minimum wage law in DC did violate the 5th- and gender did not matter regarding protections.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law which regulated the wages of both women and children working at the DC children’s hospital. Due to the large number of workers who fell into this category, the hospital sought an injunction against the requirements within the law. The hospital claimed that this law violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment and an individuals ability to enter into contracts.
Question: Was this law outside of the scope of Congress according to the fifth amendment?
Decision: The court cited article 1, the contract clause and the fifth amendment due process clause to reject the congressional attempt to regulate wages. Lochner v. NY was cited by the court to give reason to their decision in this case. The court believed that the right to enter into contracts was included in the fifth amendment due process clause.
Case: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
Citation: 261 US 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, the United States Congress passed a law establishing a minimum wage for women and children in Washington, DC. The DC Children’s Hospital argued that the law violated the freedom of contract offered by the Constitution.
Issue: Did the minimum wage law violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by infringing on the freedom of contract?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: The court decided that, due to the Nineteenth Amendment, which establishes political equality based on sex, women did not need additional legal protections. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that a minimum wage law violates the employee and employers’ right to negotiate a contract.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C
261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law ensuring a minimum wage for women and children employed in the District of Columbia. The D.C’s Children’s Hospital employed many women. However, the wages were less than required by federal law. The hospital sought an injunction against enforcing the law, arguing that it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Question: Did the law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, making it unconstitutional?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: Using Lochner v. In New York, the Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees a right of freedom of contract, which applies to the minimum wage law. An employer and employee have a constitutional right to contract as they please. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that women do not merit greater protection than men but emphasized that physical differences are recognized in appropriate cases.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Facts:
The U.S. Congress passed a law in 1918 establishing a minimum wage for women and children in Washington, D.C. The Children’s Hospital of D.C. and a female elevator operator, Willie Lyons, challenged the law, arguing that it unconstitutionally interfered with freedom of contract.
Question:
Did the law establishing a minimum wage for women violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by infringing on the freedom of contract?
Holding:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled (5-3) that the minimum wage law was unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
The government could not regulate wages in a way that limited individuals’ ability to freely negotiate employment terms. Additionally, the Court argued that since women had gained political equality through the 19th Amendment, they did not need special workplace protections.
Significance:
The ruling struck down wage regulations for women and reinforced Lochner-era legal principles that prioritized economic freedom over labor protections. However, it was later overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which upheld minimum wage laws and signaled a shift toward greater government regulation of labor conditions.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923 4 ed. P67-
261 US 525
Facts: In 1918, a minimum wage guarantee that was passed by congress was enforced by the District ofColumbiaa. Thiss established a minimum wage board and minimum wages for child labor and for women. The children’s hospital claimed that this was a violation of the 5th amendment and challenged the statute.
Issues: Does the minimum wage law violate the due process clause of the 5th Amendment?
Decision Yes
Reasoning: Per Sutherland
The court notes first that there is such a thing as an absolute freedom of contract. The court also notes that the physical differences between men and women are diminishing in intensity, noting that the differences are not as important as they seem. The court notes that there is no distinction where wages can be changed simply on the differences between men and women. The court, for this reason, notes that allowing this state would be a grave expansion of power, and in violation of the constitution, it must be struck down.
Voting coalition: 5 to 3
Summary: Differences acknowledged between men and women, and that cannot justify the setting of a minimum wage for this reason, the law is unconstitutional and grants too much authority.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C.
261 US 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress enacted a law that guaranteed minimum wage to women and children who were employed in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Children’s Hospital filed suit because they claimed the new minimum wage law violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Issue: Was it constitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment for Congress to pass certain labor laws that ensured the minimum wage to be paid for women and children in D.C.?
Holding: No
Reasoning: Per Justice Sutherland: The Court found the Nineteenth Amendment had abolished the inequality of sexes. Thus, the special protection of women was deemed unnecessary. The Court further argued that employees and employers had a constitutional right to develop a contract in whatever manner they pleased, and the new law would restrict multiple parties from contracting freely with each other.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923
Citation: 261 US 525 (1923)
Court: The Supreme Court of the United States
Date Decided: April 9, 1923
Facts: In 1918, Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. D.C.’s Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, sought an injunction against enforcing the law. The injunction was denied in the trial court but granted in the intermediate appellate court.
Issue: Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: Yes, the court held that the minimum wage law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning: The majority struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional. The Court relied on Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting bakers’ working hours under the Due Process Clause, which they believed contained a right of “freedom to contract.” In Adkins, the Court reasoned that the same reasoning extended to a minimum wage law. Employer and employee, according to the majority, had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased.
Significance: The court ruled that a federal minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, essentially declaring that the government could not mandate minimum wages for women due to the right to freedom of contract.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law establishing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Children’s Hospital employed many women and argued that Congress had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The hospital sought an injunction against enforcing the law.
Legal Question: Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: Yes
Reasoning of Court: per Sutherland. Relying on Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting bakers’ working hours under the Due Process Clause, which the Court believed contained a right of “freedom to contract,” the majority deemed that a law mandating a minimum wage for working women was an unconstitutional violation of due process. The Court reasoned that the same reasoning in Lochner extended to a minimum wage law. The freedom of contract is supported by the Due Process Clause found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. There may be exceptions to this right in unusual circumstances, but in general parties should be able to seek the most advantageous terms for them when they are negotiating an employment contract. Employer and employee, according to the majority, had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. Thus, the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract. Governmental action, such as the Nineteenth Amendment, and other reforms were necessary to dissolve the gap between the sexes; however there were no exceptional circumstances present here. Moreover, the Court reasoned that women do not merit greater protection than men, and it is implausible to suggest that the lack of a minimum wage would encourage women to engage in immoral behavior because there is no evidence that higher-earning women act more morally than lower-earning women. The law also failed to consider the interests of the employer in its effort to protect employees. Employers should not be required to pay an arbitrary amount that is unrelated to their business type or needs.
Voting Coalitions: (5 to 3). For the majority, Sutherland, McKenna, Devanter, McReynolds, Butler. Dissenting, Taft, Sanford, Holmes. Recused, Brandeis.
This case presents the argument that a minimum wage presents a damage to property without due process of law. Forgive me for saying so, but would a law specifically targeted at enforcing a wage not account for due process? The Court says it abridges a person’s right to freely contract labor, but I do not see a logical progression of that idea presented here. A minimum wage prevents workers from getting screwed over more than they already are, and with that reasoning I would say that ruling a minimum wage as facially unconstitutional would be an abridgement of the right to freely contract labor!
Title: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Facts: DC passed a law called the Minimum Wage Act of 1918, which set minimum wage rates for women and minors. The Act aimed to address unfair labor practices and improve working conditions, particularly for vulnerable groups. However, the Children’s Hospital of the District of Columbia challenged the law, arguing that it violated their liberty of contract and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Question: Did the Minimum Wage Act of 1918, which set minimum wage rates for women and minors, violate the equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the Minimum Wage Act of 1918 was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Act violated employers’ liberty of contract by interfering with their ability to negotiate wages freely with their employees. The Court also found that the Act’s distinction between men and women in setting wage rates was arbitrary and violated the equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Significance: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital marked a significant shift in the Court’s approach to economic regulation and the protection of workers’ rights. The decision struck down a progressive labor law and signaled a retreat from the Lochner era, during which the Court often invalidated economic regulations as unconstitutional infringements on liberty of contract. However, the decision also highlighted the limitations of the Court’s protection of workers’ rights and the ongoing struggle for fair labor practices.
I. Title and Citation: Adkins v Children’s Hospital of D.C 261 US 525 (1923)
II. Facts: A minimum wage guarantee was enacted by Congress in 1918 for women and children working in the District of Columbia. The Children’s Hospital in Washington, D.C., which employed both women and children, claimed that it violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment.
III. Legal Question(s): Did the minimum wage law violate the due process clause of the 5th amendment?
IV. Holding: Yes
V. Reasoning: THe Court reasoned with support from the Lochner v. New York case, where it was a violation of the freedom of contract
VI. Opinions:
Concurring Opinion: None
Dissenting Opinion: Justices Taft, Justice Sanford, and Justice Holmes Jr.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923
Facts: Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, sought an injunction against enforcing the law. The injunction was denied in the trial court.
Question: Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: Struck down minimum wage law as unconstitutional
Further Notes:
This is a 5th Amendment case, not a 14th Amendment case, because DC is not a state
This case was brought by a woman. The thinking was that if women and children had a minimum wage, then men could undercut their labor at a cheaper rate, and women would lose their jobs to men.
Legal Citation: 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Statement of Facts:
oIn 1918, Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. Such law appointed a district minimum wage board to settle on and enforce minimum wages both for child and women workers. Per the statute, employers were required to pay the set minimum wage which was geared toward “the necessary cost of living” and meant to keep workers “in good health and to protect their morals.”
oD.C.’s Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, sought an injunction (a judicial order meant to refrain from carrying out law) against the law. The injunction was denied in the trial court but granted in the intermediate appellate court.
oHospital filed suit against the 3 members of the wage board, one being Jesse C. Adkins, claiming the minimum wage law violated the 5th amendment due process clause.
Statement of Issues:
oDid the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Decision:
oYes
Reasoning:
oThe majority struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional. The Court relied on Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting bakers’ working hours under the Due Process Clause, which they believed contained a right of “freedom to contract.” In Adkins, the Court reasoned that the same reasoning extended to a minimum wage law. Employer and employees, according to the majority, had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. So, the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract. Also, the Court reasoned that women do not merit greater protection than men.
Concurring Opinions:
oNone.
Dissenting Opinions:
oIn dissent, Justices William Howard Taft, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and Edward T. Sanford argued that Congress had the policing power to correct recognizable evils.
Voting Coalition:
oThe Court ruled in favor of Adkins with a vote of 5 to 3.
Summary:
oEffects of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital were reversed in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish (1937), when the Supreme Court overturned the position that had been adopted by the court’s conservative majority and ruled that some government intervention in contracts between employers and employees is not unconstitutional
5th Amendment because DC
1918 Congress passed law guaranteeing min wage for woman and children in DC
Q: Did min wage law violate Due Process of 5th?
SC: Law was unconstitutional, min wage interfered with freedom of contract
Woman do not merit greater protection than man
Case was brought by a woman to court
Man can do job for less wage than woman
This case established that Lochner’s “Right to Contract” remained in effect, even though it no longer extended to working hour constraints following Bunting. It also implied that the Court would no longer tolerate unique labor protections for women, such as those allowed in Muller, following the enactment of the 19th Amendment.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923
congressed passed a statute that guaranteed a minimum wage for women & children to combat their exploitation
5th amd instead of the 14th b/c the legal question revolved around a federal law, not state law
“to protect their morals”
viewed as more vulnerable than men
opposite effect; extra protection became an extra burden and obstacle for (initial & continued) employment
Title and Citation:
Adkins v Children’s Hospital of D.C
261 US 525 1923
Facts:
In 1918, Congress passed a law that guaranteed a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia.
The Children’s Hospital in D.C, which employed women and children, filed an injunction against the law arguing that the new law violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The injunction was denied in the trial court, but it was granted in the intermediate appellate court.
Legal Questions:
Did the minimum wage law violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment? Yes.
Holding:
In a 5-3 holding, the court struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
The Court used on the Lochner v New York precedent, extending the “freedom of contract” to the minimum wage law.
The Court argued that the employer and employee have a constitutional right to contract in whatever way they pleased. Further adding that women do not merit greater protection than men.
Opinions:
Dissenting Opinions:
Those in dissent, argued that Congress had policing power and therefore they believed that government intervention in contracts between employer and employee was constitutional.
Adkins v Children’s Hospital
261 US 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law that set minimum wage for women in DC. The Hospital filed suit due to its believing the law violated the Due Process Clause.
Question: Did the law violate the due process clause?
Opinion: yes
Reasoning: relied on the precedent set in Lochner. Violated due to the “freedom to contract”
This case clarified that Lochner’s “Right to Contract” was still in effect, even if it no longer applied to workday hour limitations after Bunting. It also meant that specialized labor protections for women (like those permitted in Muller) would no longer be tolerated by the Court following the passage of the 19th amendment.
I. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923
II. 261 US 525
III. Facts: In 1918, Congress passed a law to set minimum wages for women and children in Washington D.C. The D.C Children’s Hospital employed many women, leading to disapproval towards the law. In response, they filed a suit to prevent the enforcement to Jesse C. Adkins and two other members of a wage board, claiming that the new minimum wage violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
IV. Issue: Does the congressional minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
V. Decision and Action: Yes
VI. Reasoning: Per Justice Sutherland, the Court argued that if legislatures were permitted to set minimum wage laws, they would be permitted to set maximum wage laws. The Court also heavily relied on Lochner v. New York, which they believed set the right of “freedom to contract.” Employer and employee had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. Thus, the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract. In addition, the Court believed that the 19th Amendment eliminated social differences between men and women, thus it was unreasonable to grant “special protection” over them.
VII. Concurring Opinion: N/A
VIII. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Taft, joined by Sanford dissented; Justice Holmes dissented.
IX. Voting Coalition: 5-3 for Children’s Hospital
X. Summary: The D.C. minimum wage law for women violated the due process right to contract freely.
This feels very familiar. The fact that legislation gets passed and the people in power somehow feel that the issue is now solved. In this case, Justice Sutherland said that because the 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote, there was no way discrimination based on sex could exist. Obviously this did not solve everything. To this day, there is still a wide pay gap between men and women.
I. Case Name: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
II. Facts: The case arose after the District of Columbia established a minimum wage for women and child laborers. The Children’s Hospital of the District of Columbia and D.C. based employer Willie Adkins contested the statute after being penalized for paying female elevator operators under the imposed minimum wage.
III. Issue: The primary issue was whether the minimum wage law for women violated the liberty of contract as provided by the Due Process Clause of the Five Amendment.
IV. Holding/Judgment: The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, ruled in favor of the Children’s Hospital. The Court argued that freedom of contract was a fundamental right and that the specific minimum wage law violated this right without serving a legitimate health or safety interest.
V. Effect: The ruling in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital marked a major setback for labor reform movements, as it severely limited the government’s ability to legislate on matters of worker’s rights and economic fairness. The Court’s decision was essentially overturned with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937 which upheld the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation.
Citation: legal brief bot
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
261 U.S. 525 (1923)
Facts:
The 1918 Minimum Wage Act of the District of Columbia mandated minimum wage rates for women and minors in specified industries like hotels and restaurants. It authorized the Board of Commissioners to determine wage levels, considering factors like women workers’ financial needs and prevailing industry wages.
Adkins, operating a women’s boarding house, challenged the Act, arguing it violated her right to freely contract with employees and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Question:
Did the District of Columbia’s Minimum Wage Act of 1918 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by interfering with the freedom to contract?
Decision:
In a close 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia’s Minimum Wage Act of 1918 was unconstitutional. Justice Sutherland, writing for the majority, argued that the Act violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by meddling with employers’ and employees’ ability to freely negotiate contracts. The Court emphasized the importance of contract liberty, stating that individuals should have the freedom to negotiate their wages and work terms without government interference. It found that the Act placed an unjustified burden on contract freedom by setting minimum wage rates without considering individual or market circumstances.
I. Name or Title of Case:
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C.
II. Legal Citation:
261 U.S
III. Statement of Facts:
Congress passed a statute in 1918 that guaranteed women and children working in the District of Columbia a minimum wage. Many women were hired by D.C.’s Children’s Hospital, which requested an injunction to prevent the law’s enforcement. The trial court rejected the injunction, but the intermediate appeal court upheld it.
IV. Statement of Issues:
Whether or not the new minimum wage act passed by Congress was in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
V. Decision and Action:
The Court ruled in favor of the Children’s Hospital of D.C., holding that the new minimum wage act passed by Congress was in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
VI. Reasoning of the Court:
The Court, delivered by Justice Sutherland, provided that based on the precedent set in Lochner v. New York, the same reasoning was applicable in this case. The majority held that both employers and employees had the constitutional right to negotiate whatever way they chose. Thus, the ability to contract was unfairly hampered by the minimum wage rule. The Court also reasoned that women did not deserve more protection than men.
VII. Concurring Opinions:
None.
VIII. Dissenting Opinions:
Justices Taft, Holmes Jr., and Sanford, as well as Chief Justice, filed dissenting opinions.
IX. Voting Coalition:
The Court ruled in favor of the Children’s Hospital of D.C. with a simple majority vote of 5 to 4.
X. Summary:
This case was important because it established that Congress could not generate laws that would establish minimum wage laws for women.
I. Name or title case: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
II. Citation: 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
III. Statement of facts: DC had a law that guaranteed a minimum wage to women. D.C. Children’s Hospital employed many women and petitioned against this by stating that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
IV. Statement of Issues:
1. Did law violate a substantive right as outlined by the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment?
V. Holding:
1.Yes
2.No
VI. Reasoning: The Court declared DC’s law unconstitutional because freedom of contract, as a result of the freedom of liberty given to the employer and employee, was violated. This was justified by Lochner v. New York. The court also said women do not need greater protection than men.
VII. Concurring opinion: Unanimous
VIII. Dissenting opinion: Congress has policing powers in the contracts between individuals.
IX. Voting coalition: 5-3
X. Summary: Freedom of contract is protected by the 14th Amendment, under the due process clause, and the minimum wage law violated this.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 1923
Facts:
– Congress set a law for women in D.C requiring that they are paid a minimum wage.
– D.C Children’s Hospital claimed that this violated the due process clause.
– D.C Children’s Hospital employed mostly women.
Question:
– Is it a violation of due process under the 5th Amendment for D.C to enforce a minimum wage for women?
Holding:
– Yes
– 5-3
– D.C law declared unconstitutional
Opinion:
– Having a minimum wage for women hindered the ability for full contract negotiations thus violating due process
– Used Lochner v. New York as precedent
This case allowed for disparities between women and men to continue. Although the minimum wage law allowed women to work at the children’s hospital, it was a severe disadvantage to work there as their employers, who were most likely men, were able to set their wages accordingly as they see fit. The men working at the hospital were no doubt getting paid much more than the women and children here.
Adkins v. Children’s hospital of D.C. 1923 showcased the power an employer has over an employee minimum wage. The court did not care for women workers not being able to pay their bills for the employer paid them as they pleased.
I find it interesting that Justice Sutherland, a man, thought he had the power to say whether or not the nineteenth amendment “had abolished the inequality of sexes.” Did he ask other women if this was how they felt? How did he know that this was the true reality that all women were experiencing in this country?
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1923 that struck down a District of Columbia minimum wage law for women in the workplace. The Court found that the law violated the liberty of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment, marking a reversal of the Court’s previous recognition of the state’s power to regulate labor conditions in Muller v. Oregon. The decision reflected a shift towards a more conservative view of economic regulation by the Court in the early 20th century.
The Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, involved a law that congress enacted in 1918, where there was to be a minimum wage for women and children set, in the District of Colombia Children’s Hospital. The women employed in the hospital sought an injunction against the law. Due to the fear of being fired or not offered a job, as males did not have a minimum wage and employers may not want to pay the minimum wage if they can pay males whatever they want. The injunction was denied, but then the appeal was brought up to the USSC. The court then ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and they actually referred back to the Lochner case. Deeming that just like in the Lochner case, setting a minimum was interfering with the freedom of contract protected under the 14th.
Now I understand why when a women gets a higher salary or position it’s said to be because “she slept her way up”, it’s due to the freedom of employer/employee wage contracts I can only imagine what the employer (a man) would coerce women to do. I never fully did understand why such a statement had been circulating for as long as it has been because I always thought that minimum wage laws were always a thing because that’s what I grew up knowing but this information makes all the pieces fit now. But wow. The audacity.
take 353 (see, I changed it up this time), 353
In response to a couple of other students, Professor Lyles has asked if the law should ever uphold special protections just for women. In my opinion, it should be because men and women have biological differences which require certain protections. Furthermore, if feminism is working to stop the subjugation of women, the only way to do this from a legal standpoint would be by passing laws that enfranchise women politically and financially and give them the freedom to do what they want. This is the difference between equality and equity. However, this is a slippery slope as the men who voted on Bradwell v. Illinois and Muller v. Oregon probably thought they were protecting women as well.
For example, when should we allow (uphold) gender discrimination for “biological differences?”
I would argue that a universal basic income of sorts for women to alleviate the burden of the Pink Tax could be allowed/upheld.
I think that this case is important because it denies the special protection of women. Previous cases like Mueller had declared special protection of women. This change of decision could be due to this case being decided shortly after the passing of the 19th Amendment, while Mueller was before. I assume that the women’s suffragist movement shifted the attitudes on special protection.
question: should the law EVER uphold special protections (just) for women?
The question was if the minimum wage law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The courts concluded that: The majority struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional. The Court relied on Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting bakers’ working hours under the Due Process Clause, which they believed contained a right of “freedom to contract.” In Adkins, the Court reasoned that the same reasoning extended to a minimum wage law. According to the majority, employers and employees had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. Thus, the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract. Moreover, the Court reasoned that women do not merit more excellent protection than men.
In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), the question is whether the minimum wage law employed in the District of Columbia violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Not only was the Court unable to find sufficient evidence of the law protecting women’s health and morals, but the law abridged a citizen’s right to freely contract labor. Therefore, invalidating the federal minimum wage law by a 5-3 vote.
In this case , SCOTUS rejected the notion of establishing a minimum wage under the basis that it violated the due process clause of the 15th amendment. The court argued that women did not deserve better protections than men. I think this case had the potential to be a win for workers rights, but instead was met with sexism.
In this case, establishing minimum wage baselines for women and children was ruled unconstitutional as it would be a violation of due process and the right to contract. Sure, but who wants the right to contract less than minimum wage? This seems like an excuse to allow the underpayment of women under the guise of respecting “equal rights” and women not needing special protections.
so are you saying the all women “do” need special protections (in this instance in employment) but in other instances as well?
In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), the Supreme Court ruled that a minimum wage law for women violated the due process clause of the 5th Amendment because it interferes with one’s right to freely contract labor. What I have noticed when reading about different cases is that there is a lot of back and forth to the point where court rulings seem contradicting.
yes, but why is this case in your textbook, why is it on my 356 syllabus?
The main premise of this case is to determine whether the minimum wage law that applied to the D.C.’s Children’s Hospital women and children employed violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In 1918, when Congress passed the minimum wage law, the D.C. Children’s Hospital filed to have an injunction against the enforcement of the law. The injunction was denied. The case reached the Supreme Court, which in a 5-3 decision ruled in favor of the Children’s Hospital and struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional. Using the precedent of Lochner v New York (and not Muller v Oregon and Bunting v Oregon) that this did not allow the “freedom to contract”. The Court argued that employers and employees have a constitutional right to contract in any means necessary. Lastly, the Court believed that women do not merit more protections than men (unlike Muller v Oregon). Hence, as a result, the minimum wage law was struck down and ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Court’s finding that the minimum wage law actually interfered with women and children’s right to contract is ridiculous. “If we have to pay all of you a minimum wage, then none of you will be able to contract for less than that wage” — that’s kind of the idea, isn’t it? The argument that the law singled out women and children with no measures for men is interesting because—and I’m guessing—men’s labor was likely more expensive… so men didn’t really need that protection. However, I think that if the Court found laws that singled out women and children but left out men to be Constitutional, the doors might have been open for similar legislation that singled out men (or benefitted men) without extending the same care/protections to women and children.
I think the Congress law that guaranteed a minimum wage to women and children did not mean to give privileges to women and kids over men, but to act as affirmative action by protecting two groups that were largely exploited. By this, I do not mean that men were not exploited as well; however, women and kids were seen as a source of cheap labor, cheaper than men’s. The purpose of the freedom to contract is to guarantee the right “to obtain from each other the best terms they can by private bargaining.” Women and children’s labor conditions were not really a bargain. They had two choices, accepting the employers’ conditions or being unemployed.
Whereas Muller v. Oregon recognized women as deserving special protection in the workplace, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital denies that protection, calling it a violation of due process. Since the Court already determined that it was permissible to interfere in a contract between employee and employer so long as it benefits the public good, the Court could have declared the minimum wage law an unconstitutional violation of due process and extend the protection to men as well.
In 1918, Congress passed a law to set minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia. As in other cases, the question was one of balancing the police power of Congress to regulate working and living conditions with the right of individuals to conduct their own affairs without legislative interference. Children’s Hospital and a female elevator operator at a hotel brought the case to prevent enforcement of the act by Jesse C. Adkins and the two other members of a wage board. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital decided that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Adkins was overturned in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.
In Adkins vs Children’s Hospital, the court ruled that establishing a minimum wage was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it restricted rights to freely contract labor. The court also took issue with providing special protections to women and not men. They cited the passing of the 19th Amendment as evidence that women should not be provided special protections.
As established in Lochner v. New York and Bunting v. Oregon, negotiating a contract based on a wage is a very important part of an employer’s day. If there’s no contract, workers can do whatever. This law, meant to protect women and children from overworking, was well-intended, but apparently never read the opinions of either piece to know what the Court deemed Constitutional. Negotiating hours is one thing – employers can just hire more to fill the gap – but forcing a change in wages was considered something else entirely, as now the business owner is being forced to work around a wage requirement for a contract, limiting their due process by slicing their margins away. While a well-intended law, it did set back the Minimum Wage by a few years in not supporting itself as properly as it could. As mentioned in the first brief as well, the case was argued for favoring women and children over men, which can be viewed as protection they didn’t need due to the 19th Amendment equalizing men and women … apparently. I did read the opinion, and it does say that giving women less contract control than men is problematic, and names it as an argument for the opinion, so maybe the amendment really does give equality to both?
Anyway, the dissent opinion was interesting, as it was written by former-President Taft. He describes the Bunting case and that the overtime pay could be a logical extension of a minimum wage, so the law would stand anyway. Any opinions on this take?
He describes the Bunting case and that the overtime pay could be a logical extension of a minimum wage, so the law would stand anyway. Any opinions on this take? not really, but I do take issue with your comment “the case was argued for favoring women and children over men, which can be viewed as protection they didn’t need due to the 19th Amendment equalizing men and women … apparently.” This was quite a leap, not sure if you are agreeing or summarizing.
Summarizing his opinion and the logical leap it took.
The Court continues to once again interpret an amendment in a way that hurts the rights of workers but this time under the guise of the alleged protections given by the 19th amendment. Even in the case where the 19th protects against discrimination on the basis of sex, I don’t understand how a minimum wage threatens the right of an employer to create a lawful and fair contract. If anything, using the concept of protecting contracts like in Lochner v. New York, one would hope that there would be an understandable difference between establishing a minimum vs establishing a maximum (in regards to wage and hours). Maybe I am misunderstanding, but this just seems like another loophole to undercut any work completed by women by removing a safeguard against possible discrimination in the workplace (despite the fact that some may believe this verdict to be uplifting as women are slightly recognized as “equal” in the sense that they do not need “special protections”).
honest mistake, I don’t think you intended to reference the 19th Amendment. you can edit your comment to correct it
Yes, I meant to reference the due process clause of the 5th, in regards to the liberty of forming a contract between an employer and worker. Not sure how to edit the original comment.
question to anyone in class. I have the ability to edit your comments as well as edit my own replies (after the fact), is that option not available to you? If not , I will see if there is a plugin I can add?
As far as I can tell, I can’t edit my comments.
thanks Joshua, I will look into that option (see if there is a plugin)
I think I added the correct plugin and you should be able to edit your comments now
The Court’s decisions in these cases relating to work, employee-employer relations, and wages were all confusing as they were inconsistent throughout. In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the Court found the minimum wage law—which guaranteed a minimum wage to women and children—as unconstitutional. The entire reasoning of “freedom of contract” does not make much sense because regardless if both sides agreed to the contract, it is clear that one side is gaining more from the contract; in this case, these workers were not being paid fair wages.
To what I can conclude about this case is that it is in fact hypocritical and ironic. This case focuses on the due process clause of the 5th amendment which confuses me because the due process clause was meant to protect citizens… and women were fighting for minimum wage. The hospital wasn’t agreeing.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of contract liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The Court reasoned in Adkins that the same reasoning applied to a minimum wage law. According to the majority, both the employer and the employee had a constitutional right to contract in any way they wanted. As a result, the minimum wage law infringed on the right to contract. Furthermore, the Court concluded that women do not deserve any more protection than men.
Despite citing the Lochner precedent where the court affirms their move to protect the freedom of contract for both workers and employers, this decisions seems to reflect (or show almost absolutely) that they were at the time more committed to the defend the liberty and sanctity of private businesses and such rather than the protection of marginalized groups that were being underpaid and facing other harsh working conditions.
I find it ironic they use the precedent of Lochner to justify their ruling because it sees women weren’t even included in the discussion at all when it came to Lochner which was why Mueller occurred and they ruled differently when it was women who brought themselves to the court…unless I am misunderstanding the case. Anyway, I also don’t think minimum wage is a win for women anyway because it limits them from making more for their work so in that sense, I agree with the ruling of the case.
Can you explain more what you mean by the minimum wage not being a win for women?
I want to comment on this as well, someone please ask about this in class
I appreciate Chief Justice Taft’s dissenting opinion. He points out the dichotomy in the court’s decisions in Lochner v. New York and Bunting v. Oregon and how they played out in this case. The argument that he makes is that the freedom of contract to limit hours was allowed by Bunting, but the ability to regulate wage was disallowed for violating the freedom of contract in Lochner. These factors are equally important in making an employment contract as together they make up the total wage for a week.
They are not as unalike as the majority made them seem to be, which means that either both are or aren’t limiting their freedom of contract. The majority here were having their cake and eating it too and grasping at straws to differentiate between insignificantly different factors.
The law was passed to protect women and children against situations that are harmful to their health and morality as a result of salaries that are insufficient to sustain appropriate living standards. The court upheld that there was no evidence that the minimum wage improved women’s conditions. The majority distinguished the court’s 1908 decision in Mueller versus Oregon which had upheld a law setting the maximum number of hours for female workers in certain industries, the Mueller court had reasoned that differences between the sexes justified a different rule for female workers, however in the Atkins courts view revolutionary changes to the status of women in society since 1908 including the adoption of the 19th amendment which guaranteed the women the right to vote. Their rhetoric was that women didn’t need special employment protections since they could protect their own interests through the political process and equal negotiating power assuming that women were equally able to practice individual freedom.
I have a couple of questions. Why is the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment part of the issue rather than the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? And since the issue in this case is referring to the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, why does the Court use its decision in Lochner v. NY as part of its reasoning in Adkins when Lochner v. NY had to do with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
This case is yet another example of how interpretation of the law is key when arguing in a case. The “freedom of contract” is brought up and interpreted in a way that it fits the narrative they want while still being lawful. Also they argued on how women should not get better protection than men. This becomes ironical and shows how law is interpret to fit a certain purpose when we compare it to other cases like Muller v. Oregon where it was okay for women to get better protection and have limited work hours due to their “nature”
This case was a very interesting one to learn about. The case talked about how the courts argued that the 19th amendment already gave women equal protection so a law like this was unnecessary. This point stood out to me and made me think about how this amendment only gave women the right to vote, it didn’t say anything about giving women equal or fair wages. This makes me wonder if a woman argued in front of the court that the 19th amendment gave her equal protection so she should be entitled to a certain amount of wages, would the court agree with her, or say that the 19th amendment is only about voting?
I am not sure how to look at this case because on the one hand, I am glad that men and women were claimed to have an equal need of protection. On the other hand, I question the motives of this statement because this case greatly disadvantages women as they would be forced to continue receiving low wages for their work. Overall, women and workers rights were not protected with this case.
Despite not protecting the lower class employees, in the scope of women and the Constitution, it is a relief to see that the Court decided that women do not require greater protection than men. This outcome is contrary to the Mueller v. Oregon case where women were deemed to be too accustomed to childcare and needed to be limited in how many hours they worked. The decision makes sense, especially with the precedent of the Lochner v. New York decision, but it is still disappointing to see employees remain unprotected from unlivable wages.
Desiree Estrada 8:08 PM Feb 21
I think the act of using gender as a defense in a court case but then contradicting that same gender in other aspects of the law is hypocritical. I find it absurd that society felt the need to protect women from working dangerous hours late at night or long work weeks, but did not feel the need to protect their right to an appropriate minimum wag to support their children and families.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jacqueline Harmon
Jacqueline Harmon Feb 11, 2021
During this time, it seems like the court used gender to their advantage. If they wanted women to have a certain right, they would use the excuse of their gender, if they did not want them to have certain rights, well, then their gender would get used again.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ashanti Simpkins
Ashanti Simpkins Feb 11, 2021
The case is significant because the court rules that “women do not merit greater protection than men” and they struck down a law that would guarantee women and children a minimum wage in DC.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Grace Castillo Rojo Moreno
Grace Castillo Rojo Moreno Feb 10, 2021
It is funny how they can say that gender does not matter but then they use it as an excuse to not let women work more than 10 hours because it would affect their health.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ariana Lopez
Ariana Lopez Feb 9, 2021
It is frustrating to see how while cases like Lochner v new York were exploring the concept of labor laws and worker’s rights, cases like Adkins v Children’s hospital and Muller v Oregon determined their rulings and set the way for the case based off on gender. I agree with Donny that it is important to recognize the movement towards labor laws and worker’s rights, but it is at the expense of women.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ben Lee
Ben Lee Feb 9, 2021
The court found that when forming a contract, each party has the ability to achieve the best terms possible. In order for the Government to abridge the contract, it must justify exceptional circumstances. Since the minimum wage was only for women, the court reasoned that because the 19th amendment granting equality, women were not to be afforded special protections (barring physical differences.. Thus since minimum wage laws for men were unconstitutional so too were they for women.
Reply
Nicole Solayman
Nicole Solayman
On top of your statement, I find the court’s ruling to bend over backwards in protecting the employers over the employees. In these kinds of low paying and labor intensive jobs, the conditions created are meant to produce the largest profit margins. Aside from not ‘granting special protections,’ the court is totally putting the employer first, and throwing the nineteenth amendment’s pursuit towards equality in the faces of women.
Feb 9, 2021•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Yoli Esparza
Yoli Esparza Feb 9, 2021
This case is pretty hypocritical in the prior cases we were asked to read this week they constantly mention means of shielding women for their own “protection” within the private sector, but now they argue that women do not deserve the freedom to have adequate pay to survive. It is annoying to have learn that women regardless of how far they came, found themselves ten steps back for whatever reason in order keep men in power and women as less than.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Donny Situ
Donny Situ Feb 9, 2021
At this point, the court rulings just seems so inconsistent with the past few cases we’ve read so far. Some lean towards Lochner v New York as a precedent while others fall in line with Muller V. Oregon. It’s good that they are slowly working towards labor laws and protecting the people from unsafe or unfair practices, but women also gets the short end of the stick as well.
The line that stuck out the most was Justice Sutherland’s statement in regards to gender equality: “it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point.” This is ridiculously. It is like saying racism is no longer exists in America because we had a black president.
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
good point, but was Sutherland speaking socially or legally? or is this a distinction without a difference?
Feb 9, 2021•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Mohammed Alzweiy
Mohammed Alzweiy Feb 9, 2021
the court deeming that women do not require more defense than men or are no different than men is pretty hypocritical, and it seems like the women’s “delicacy” is only relevant when it defends the employers interests rather than the employee.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Catherine Ortega
Catherine Ortega Feb 8, 2021
The way that the Supreme Court has approached cases that include women has been very inconsistent over the last 100 years. I’m not really understanding why not too long ago women were considered weak in the workplace simply for being women and now suddenly there are cases surrounding child labor and how much they should be paid for their time… They’re children with literally tiny ankles. (I mention ankles because it was one of the arguments presented in Muller v Oregon)
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jocelyn Rodriguez
Jocelyn Rodriguez Feb 8, 2021
I think this case is important to look at since it deemed that the min. wage law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the freedom to contract, which was established in Lochner v. New York. In addition to this, they also deemed that women did not deserved more protection than men.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Anastasia Pogrebchtchikov
Anastasia Pogrebchtchikov Feb 8, 2021
It is so interesting to see how the different circumstances at each time bring out a different ruling from the supreme court. Now that the 19th amendment has been passed, the court now sees it just that women are not treated any differently than men. However this was not the case in Lochner v New York which was ruled on prior to the 19th amendment.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ana Al Saad
Ana Al Saad Feb 8, 2021
It’s interesting and surprising the Court struck down the minimum wage law towards the women and children workin in D.C.’s Children’s Hospital on the basis of precedent in Lochner v. New York because it was assumed the case’s ruling was overruled in Bunting v. Oregon. Justice Taft’s dissent address this, “I have always supposed that the Lochner case was thus overruled sub silentio.” It’s also odd that Justice Sutherland would use the adoption of the 19th Amendment as a way to rule the Court did require to give women certain protections when they had previously ruled in Muller v. Oregon that women were weaker and their maternal functions deemed them unable to work for more than 10 hours and thus upheld Oregon’s law on that basis.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Marina Pascual
Marina Pascual Feb 8, 2021
As others have noted, the 19th Amendment did not create equality between the sexes. Women continued to be discriminated against in numerous ways including housing and employment. This decision does not follow the same logic as the Muller case. In this decision, Justice Sutherland writes that adult women are “legally as capable as contracting themselves as men.” How does the Court find that women must be protected from the “greed as well as the passion of man” in the Muller case, but finds that they are able to advocate for themselves in the Atkins case, less than 20 years later? It is clear that the Justices have no regard for the welfare of women; they just want them to earn less than a man, or preferably stay at home.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Osikenoya Usman-Aliu
Osikenoya Usman-Aliu Feb 8, 2021
1923- Supreme Court invalidates woman’s minimum wage law because they were equal to men because they got the right to vote. Reverses the Mueller v. Oregon decision (women get special protection in the workplace)
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Emma Floyd
Emma Floyd Feb 8, 2021
I agreed with parts of Chief Justice Taft’s, specifically, that employees receiving little pay are “peculiarly subject to the overreaching of the harsh and greedy employer,” and because of this, they will often accept anything that is offered which is why a minimum wage can be so important. Taft goes on to say that minimum wage laws and maximum hour laws may not be the remedy to the “evils” of many employers, but that it is “not the function of this court to hold congressional acts invalid simply because they are passed to carry out economic views which the court believes to be unwise or unsound.” Justice Sutherland’s opinion, in which he compares minimum wage laws and maximum wage laws, makes it seem as though there was certainly an economic bias in this case in which ultimately Sutherland and the rest of the Court that voted with him, voted to uphold men’s businesses above all others and their economic wellbeing.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Mayra Villa
Mayra Villa Feb 8, 2021
It’s interesting to see how the Court contradicts itself in these cases as time goes on. Since the 19th Amendment was now established during this time, the Court ruled that women didn’t need extra protection than men, yet in the case of Muller v Oregon they used the argument that women were incapable of being independent and therefore weak.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Arnold Brown
Arnold Brown Feb 8, 2021
I find it funny that the SC believes that once the 19th Amendment was implemented that everyone was equal. The enacting of this statute was seen as giving “special treatment” to women and that was not necessary because the 19th Amendment seemed to have solved the gender inequality issue, laughable really.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Cassidy McLernon
Cassidy McLernon Feb 8, 2021
It’s really baffling to me that the Supreme Court decided to strike down a statute that declared a minimum wage for children and women. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want them to receive a livable wage. It’s interesting to me that the majority ruled that women do not merit greater protection than men, but in the Muller case it was decided that women are limited to 10 hour work days because they are fragile and weak. So wouldn’t that merit greater protection?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Matt Springer
Matt Springer Feb 8, 2021
In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the D.C. Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, sought an injunction against enforcing the law. The CQ of the case is Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the same reasoning, in Locher, extended to a minimum wage law. Employer and employee had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. I’ve heard tons of arguments against a living wage or $15, but wow. I guess business will do whatever in their power to maximize profits and screw the everyday worker, especially female. Good job capitalism
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Krystal Garcia Centeno
Krystal Garcia Centeno Feb 8, 2021
So essentially the Court’s decision to declare a minimum wage for women is unconstitutional because it would negatively impact businesses owned by men? Or because they believe they are upholding and protecting the overall morality of women? Either way the decision is so explicitly sexist.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Denice Bernal
Denice Bernal Feb 8, 2021
It appears that the ruling in this case decided that it was more important to protect the substantive rights of capitalism over the right of working class women and children, I can’t help but wonder if by merit more protection than men the court was looking back to the slaughter house cases were men were denied protection to slaughter their cows wherever they wanted.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Drew Fowler
Drew Fowler Feb 8, 2021
The court struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional using the same justification and precedent of Lochner v New York. The court reasoned that the same liberty of contract argument extends to the requirement of certain wages for workers
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Tina Tran
Tina Tran Feb 8, 2021
Once again women are being used as pawns in a bigger game of power. The cases prior are constantly sheltering women within the private sphere for their own “safety” and “protection” however, now they are claiming that women do not have the right to have enough pay to live. Women are either prevented from entering the public sphere or allowed to be in it but not given the means to live.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Zuzanna Kubiszewska
Zuzanna Kubiszewska Feb 8, 2021
What stands out to me to be the most interesting part of this case is that the Hospital tried to actively argue against providing a livable wage to women on the basis of their sex as if their personhood and need to survive is secondary to the fact that they posses a different gender identity. The absurdity of this argument dumbfounded me because it made it clear that wellbeing of a large demographic took a second seat to the sexism of those involved within the case. All of these case from this week (Lochner, Muller) really show the divide between the way that women were perceived and what lengths institutions would go to diminish the role of women
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Brianna Moling
Brianna Moling Feb 8, 2021
In this case the Court ruled that the minimum wage law in DC was unconstitutional reasoning that employers and employees have a right to contract however they wanted. I was quite shocked after reading that they also reasoned that “women do not merit greater protection than men”. It does not seem to me as though women were asking for greater protection (even though in Muller v. Oregon the Court basically ruled that women cannot work long hours because that’s a mans job) and instead just simply fair and reasonable labor rights and protection.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jyah Vora
Jyah Vora Feb 7, 2021
In this case, the Court ruled the minimum wage law unconstitutional because it violated the right of individuals to create contracts with whomever they want. I also would be curious as to what the labor laws for children were like at this time.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Rama Izar
Rama Izar Feb 7, 2021
It is really significant that in this case, the Court found that “women did not merit greater protection than men.” Is this the same court that loved Brandeis’ brief back in 1908 (Muller v. Oregon) which said that women are weak and can’t do anything without the help of a man??? I’m confused.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Annmarie Gobin
Annmarie Gobin Feb 2, 2021
This case gave ‘women’ the right to minimum wage to a ‘living standard’. I put women in quotation marks because this came after the 19th Amendment which only gave white women the right to vote, therefore, this law only gave white women the right to a living wage. I think that these laws continue to show the institutionalized racism in the federal law system and even today, we can see how the difference between black and white women economically is the government’s own fault.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Malak Kanan
Malak Kanan May 7, 2020
Using the 19th amendment to say that women and men were equal isn’t fair. Requiring that women and children get paid minimum wage is unfair and the 5th amendment can protect that statement. People should have the right to negotiate their pay based on the work they put in.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Apr 30, 2020
FACTS: This case was brought to the courts to decide and enforce the minimum wage for women and children. It was in response to a District of Columbia statue. The statute required employers to pay a set minimum wage which would cover “the necessary cost of living” and meant to keep workers “in good health and to protect their morals” However an employer argued that said statute is unconstitutional.
ISSUES: Is the District of Columbia in violation of the freedom of contract right as stated in the fifth amendment by passing a statute creating a minimum wage for women?
DECISION: (Struck down the law) the lower court’s ruling stands, the D.C. statute is unconstitutional.
REASONING: the minimum wage did not take into account the amount of work being done. For this statue to pass it had to be under exceptional circumstances and this was not one of them. They stated that wages should be negotiable by contract.
The Court relied on Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting bakers’ working hours under the Due Process Clause, which they believed contained a right of “freedom to contract.” In Adkins, the Court reasoned that the same reasoning extended to a minimum wage law.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Nadeen Elsayed
Nadeen Elsayed Apr 13, 2020
This was brought under the 5th amendment due process clause instead of the 14th because this was located in D.C., which is not a state.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 25, 2020
Minimum wage as unconstitutional that gave more insight to the general inequality of the workplace but still a workaround thanks to Lochner
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 19, 2020
In this case the court declared the minimum wage unconstitutional as it violated the due process of the 5th amendment. The court sent a message of equality when things were not very equal to begin with but the message would need further clarification as there is no statue that clearly states equal rights.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kiera Gnatz
Kiera Gnatz Feb 17, 2020
Facts of the case:
Congress passed a law creating set minimum wages for child labor and women workers in Washington D.C. D.C.’s Children’s Hospital filed a lawsuit claiming that the forced minimum wages for its women workers violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment.
Issue being decided:
Does the Minimum Wage Law of District of Colombia violate the due process clause of the 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes (5-3) – (Justice Brandeis refrained)
Reasoning:
The law would forbid two parties to freely contract with one another, which was previously deemed unconstitutional in Lochner v. New York. It also does not take into consideration of type of work, earning power, the necessities of the employer required to pay a set minimum wage to women and children workers.
It was felt that women deserved no special “extra” protections anymore than men do.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2020
Team 2:
Adkins v Children’s Hospital
261 US 525 (1923)
Facts: In 1918, Congress enacted a law that set a minimum wage for women and children employed in the District of Columbia. D.C.’s Children’s Hospital, which employed many women, brought the suit against 3 members of the wage board on the grounds that a state setting wage requirements violated the 5th amendment.
Issue: Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes it is unconstitutional (5-3).
Reasonings: The Court used the same reasoning as Lochner v New York and “freedom of contract” and applied it to the minimum wage law. An employer and employee always have the freedom of contract to decide wages, therefore the law violates that freedom. Additionally, the Court argued that since the introduction of the 19th amendment, men and women are equal, therefore women should not require greater protection.
Significance: The Court struck down a law that would guarantee a minimum wage for women and implied that the men and women were now equal since equal suffrage existed. This is a dangerous argument considering how clearly unequal rights and legal treatment were.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 9, 2020
I am grateful that the court acknowledged the equality of women and men, despite the greed rooted in the case surrounding this progress. It’s unfortunate that with the privileges of equality before the law and in society, males tend to strip away ‘polite’ behaviors. Although many chivalrous behaviors are rooted in sexism under the guise of protection, often males take this desire for equality and earned rights as an ‘attack’. Prominent, sexist men have said things along the lines of claiming that since females want to be equal so bad, we should be able to hit them, fight them, treat them as other men. Similarly, when women seem more masculine men blame feminism and earned rights. This was a great case to set precedent for equal rights, but the ruling that acknowledged the 19th amendment edged on vindictive and the ruling possibly the result of a bitter, conservative man. Regardless, protections of women–not as a submissive class but a class that deals with oppression–were acknowledged in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jessica Myles
Jessica Myles Feb 9, 2020
In the court saying that wages should be negotiable contracts between the employer and employees is ignoring the amount of power the employer has over the situation. It is rare that an employee has enough power to demand the wage that they deserve. The argument of basing the minimum wage off of the cost of living seems fare for both parties. If someone is working they should be alluded enough money to sustain living, at the least.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Marissa Scavelli
Marissa Scavelli Feb 6, 2020
The Ruling in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital reflects the change in law regarding female workers. The Supreme Court held that the minimum wage law, which forced employers to pay their women and child workers a predetermined minimum wage, was unconstitutional. The ruling in this case may have negatively affected many women and children employees because they were most likely underpaid compared to male workers. But, the Court acknowledged equality nonetheless. The Court held that a woman has the same contracting competence as a man, and therefore they held that the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract. The Supreme Court decided that it was not appropriate to restrict a woman’s freedom to contract for her labor service if the same restriction was not equally applied to a man. I can’t say that this ruling was great for women all together because it seems more like it was beneficial for business owners instead.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 5, 2020
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT!!!! The court referenced Lochner v. New York and struck down the minimum wage law, because it infringed upon the Freedom of Contract.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 5, 2020
I think Justice Taft’s dissenting opinion was spot on in his dissent especially in his comment about being wrong to think that employees have the same power in setting wages as employers.
Chief Justice Taft: Taft argued that the Court was mistaken by assuming that an
employee and an employer have the same level of power in setting wages. He
further argues that by the same Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, these
employees should be protected from employers abusing their power to pay them
less. He also does not agree with the weight of the distinction the Court places on
minimum wage versus maximum work hours.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jose Perez
Jose Perez Feb 5, 2020
The court reasoned that the employers were not able to change wages that were promised to an employee based on workload. The court argued that the employer should pay what the law mandates is minimum in order to protect the well being of the employee.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Leya Ismail
Leya Ismail Feb 5, 2020
Using Lochner V New York as a precedent, the Court reasoned that employer and employee, according to the majority, had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Sylvia Waz
Sylvia Waz Feb 5, 2020
A law was passed to ensure that a minimum wage was being paid to women and children who worked in the District of Columbia. D.C.’s children’s hospital did not want to follow the law so they sought an injunction. They failed in the trial court but they succeeded in the appellate court.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 7, 2019
I think this case along with Muller v Oregon , Bunting v Oregon , shows the significance of the court how the freedom of contract and the 14th can be interrupted to affect women differently in the work place
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ines Josefina Castaneda
Ines Josefina Castaneda Feb 7, 2019
This is interesting since they ruled in favor of the employees defining what they have ruled in other cases like this. What surprises me is that since women where the employees and they were fighting to remove the minimum wage. Did this ultimately favor the hospital since there was now not minimum limit on how much they could pay their employees?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Lillie Elling
Lillie Elling Feb 7, 2019
The ruling and reasoning in this case agrees with the ruling and reasoning in Lochner v. New York though it does not agree with Bunting v. Oregon or Muller v. Oregon. The differing views of the Court are a bit confusing. It seems that they can’t make up their minds about the constitutionality of some legislation or previous rulings.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 6, 2019
Significance:
“This case was a part of the Lochner Era cases which involved using substantive due process to interpret the freedom of contract found in the 5th Amendment. The Lochner era of cases were seen as a time in which the Supreme Court consistently ruled against federal legislation about economic policies. It was eventually overturned by West Coast Hotel v Parrish (1937).”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 6, 2019
All of these court cases contradict each other. The fact that women earning a higher wage was declared unconstitutional is crazy considering that some cases are for involvement in women’s work place and some are against getting involved. It seems that the ruling in these cases more times than not go against what would have benefited women.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Alexis Rosenbery
Alexis Rosenbery Feb 6, 2019
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1923
Congress 1918 passes a statute that guarantees a minimum wage for [exploited] women and children
FACTS: This case was brought in response to a District of Columbia statute
appointing a district minimum wage board to settle on and enforce minimum wage
both for child labor and women workers. Per the statute, employers were required to
pay the set minimum wage which was geared toward “the necessary cost of living”
and meant to keep workers “in good health and to protect their morals.” The
Children’s Hospital is an employer arguing that said statute is unconstitutional.
ISSUES: Whether the legislature of the District of Columbia, in passing a statute
fixing minimum wage for women, is in violation of the freedom of contract right as
outlined in the Fifth Amendment?
DECISION: Lower court decision AFFIRMED. The D.C. statute is deemed
unconstitutional.
REASONING: The Court reasoned that legislation which abridges the right to
freedom of contract is justified only if exceptional circumstances exist. The Court
further reasoned that this particular case did not present such exceptional
circumstances, as the fixed minimum wage did not take into consideration the level of
work being done, nor does it account for the needs of the employer. It outlines an
essential difference between fixing hours of labor and wages, because wages should
be negotiable by contract in order to accommodate for the number of hours lost or
gained. The Court saw no connection between the different types of work being
performed and the various workers in the district to justify a fixed minimum wage,
and therefore declared the statute to be an “arbitrary exercise of power.”
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
Chief Justice Taft: The Chief Justice argued that the district legislature, as well as the
Court by upholding the legislation, act on the incorrect assumption that an employee
receiving the least pay are on a level of equality with there employers. He further
argues that by the same Fifth and Fourteenth Ame
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Channel Crittenden
Channel Crittenden Feb 13, 2018
-In 1918, Congress in the District of Columbia passed a statute that established a fixed minimum wage for women and children.
-The children’s hospital challenges this by claiming that the women employed were hired with wages that were mutually agreed upon, and the new federal law now required that the Children’s hospital pay the female employees more
-Children’s Hospital brought suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against Adkins (defendant), a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the federal official responsible for administering the minimum wage program
-Question: did the minimum wage law interfere with the hospital’s constitutional right of due process (fifth amendment)–right of the hospital to freely contract and negotiate their employees wages
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 8, 2018
Sooooo according to the Court in this decision, a minimum wage for women is only unconstitutional because it would negatively impact businesses owned by men. And still, the Court believes they are “protecting the health and morals” (whatever that means) of women. Riiiiiiiiight…
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 8, 2018
It’s interesting how in Muller v Oregon they place a maximum for work hours (10) for women claiming they need protection yet in this case, Adkins v Children’s Hospital, Justice Sutherland claimed that the 19th amendment now made it unnecessary to protect women as it had brought the “ancient inequality of the sexes” to its “vanishing point”.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 8, 2018
The District of Columbia Children’s Hospital believed that Congress violated the 5th amendment because of the minimum wages towards women and children. However, “the freedom of contract” was supported due to the due process clause in the 5th amendment. The due process clause was supposed to guarantee rights to the citizens of the United States, and the women at the hospital were not given that right to voice their opinions in the minimum wage decision. As a result, the violation of the due process clause was considered unconstitutional. This cases relates to today’s times because in the workplace, women are still not given equal pay as men. Black women, especially, are hit the hardest with the equal pay gap.
Reply
Deleted user
Deleted user
Feb 8, 2018•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 7, 2018
-Title and citation
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
-Facts
A statute set a minimum wage for women and children working in DC. Employers were to pay workers the minimum wage (set) in regards to the “necessary cost of living” and keep workers “in good health and to protect their morals.” Children’s Hospital filed suit against members of the wage board (including Jesse C. Adkins). The Children’s Hospital in this case argued the statute was unconstitutional
-Legal question
By setting a minimum wage for women, does DC violate the due process clause of the 5th amendment?
-Holding
Yes, therefore the DC statute was ruled unconstitutional. 5-3 decision
-Reasoning
Legislation that curtails “freedom of contract” (protected in Lochner) is only justified when there are exceptional circumstances. Fixed minimum wage doesn’t account work amount of work being done, or employer needs, making this an unexceptional case.
Justice Sutherland argued that the 19th amendment brought the “ancient inequality of the sexes” to a vanishing point, consequently there was no need for women’s protection. He also argued this law would forbid freedom of contract (where a set minimum wage is unconstitutional but an hourly maximum is constitutional)
-Dissents
Chief Justice Taft argued that DC legislature and the lower court incorrectly assume that employees receiving a minimum wage are on an equal level to their employers. By the 5th and 14th amendments, employees should be protected from employer’s abuses of power by implementing a set minimum wage.
Justice Holmes argued that there exists many restrictions on contract, and that the statute does not compel the employer to pay a certain amount, but prevents payment below the fixed minimum requirement of health/right living
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 7, 2018
This case demonstrates the deeply embedded sexism that continued to prevail after the 19th amendment. Despite Sutherland’s statement that there is no “ground for distinction between women and men…If women require a minimum wage to preserve their morals men require to preserve their honesty,” undermines the fact that his opinion on the court presents a clear difference between men and women. What does honesty and morality have to do with having a quality standard of living, that is reflective of the rising cost of living? Sutherland leaves the onus on the companies to decide what is a justifiable wage for men and women, that “a law forbidding work to continue beyond a given number of hours leaves the parties free to contract about wages and thereby equalize whatever additional burdens may be imposed by the employer…” Even if this means that the decision would warrant men capable of sustaining long hours and should thus be paid accordingly and women, who “must be given special protection…[and] restraint in her contractual and civil relationships, must accept shortened hours in turn for lower wage. I agree with the dissenting opinions of Justice Holmes and Justice Taft. Justice Taft said it best, that the limitation in freedom of contract by the imposition of minimum wage assumes that those receiving least pay are not upon a full level of equality and will accept whatever is available out of necessity. Additionally, Holmes presents the hypocrisy in the ordeal where the court has the ability to impose the maximum amount of hours ‘women’ can work, but cannot provide women with the minimum amount of pay that they request. I see this case as a precedent to the covert glass ceilings that have historically impeded the progress of women in the workforce.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 5, 2017
I found Justice Sutherland’s comment in regards to the “ancient inequality of the sexes” that have apparently met its “vanishing point” after the passing of the 19th Amendment, thus justifying the neglect towards furthering women’s protective rights, as an outright lazy argument. That is like saying discrimination is dead just because we no longer have rules legalizing racial separation, and because of the technical legal “end” to one facet of normalized racism, that there is no longer an obligation to further protect minority rights. These kinds of arguments are negligent and seem to serve primarily as a facade of change without holding much water.
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
de jure vs de facto?
Feb 5, 2017•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 1, 2017
I’m curious as to the decision of the court. I find myself being confused over the morality of the judges in the majority. They feel it violates the rights of women and children to determine their own best interests in a private contract while insisting women were being held to the same standards as men while in private business they were not. I find the ruling both troubling in its methodology but progressive in its outcome.
Reply
Deleted user
Deleted user
(If the final outcome was an eventual standard minimum wage, decrease in work hours, paid overtime, and discussion of the right;s of women and child workers.)
Feb 1, 2017 (edited Feb 1, 2017)•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 1, 2017
This case really does remind me of the commonly mentioned idea of living nowadays in a post-sexist society, similar to what has been mentioned below. I have a distant family member who told me that feminism is dead because he knows a lot of women who have a better, more powerful job than he does.
So, no, I was not happy when I saw that the “ancient inequality of the sexes” was brought to its “vanishing point” from Justice Sutherland.
Furthermore, now that Trump’s SCOTUS nominee has been announced, I am wondering if something like this will happen again.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2016
I was reminded of the same parallel that Humaa mentioned below that people often use, “we are living in a post-racist society because of Obamas presidency.” In sum, this is what I took from what Sutherland was proposing about women: we have given you what you wanted- the right to vote- bravo to us for letting you have that right. And now that you have this “freedom,” there is no further protection needed for you nor should you require any other freedoms because we have solved your problems through allowing you the right to vote.
I also thought it was interesting that Sutherland had support from a leader of the suffragist movement, Alice Paul, I would have thought her views to not be consistent with that of Sutherland. But this is probably an example of the divide among women in the feminist movements- white feminism having it’s own set of values that often left out women who weren’t white and middle class, using the same tools that were used to oppress them (as women) to oppress women of color, queer women, poor women, etc. I digress.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2016
It is interesting how the Court saw no connection between the different types of work being performed and the various workers in the district to justify a fixed minimum wage, as if they disregarded the dissenting opinions, that the point of the minimum wage was to establish a minimum wage for fair living, not to determine a wage based on someone’s skill and capabilities.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2016
I find it hilarious how conservative actors want to do away with the minimum wage, but it was, more or less, coupled with working hours and some of the first tangible reform in child labor. It’s not hard to tell that we are at the peak of the progressive era due to the nature of this case. This case harkens back to the Lochner Era where the monopoly of industrialists was strong.
Although their have been and probably always will be conflicts between private citizens engaging in contracts and the protection of workers rights, this case railroaded the ability for workers to ensure any kind of decent economic protection. Furthermore, it’s no surprise that the merits of the case were decided on the backs of archaic views of women not competing with men to perform similar forms of labor.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 3, 2016
The 19th Amendment had brought the “ancient inequality of the sexes” to its “vanishing point”, and thus, there was no need for women’s protection. My eyes rolled when I read this. The wording of this is so childish. The rhetoric reminds me of those people who argue that racism is gone because we have a black president.
Yes, women are equal to men. But, especially in that time period, there are still many people who would intently discriminate women and that is why it is imperative to protect them. What’s the point of amendments if they won’t be followed through?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 3, 2016
The provision of a legislative constraint on an employer’s ability to negotiate wages apparently violates the “freedom of contract.” While I agree with this line of reasoning, I think the state has compelling interests in maintaining the safety of members of the community…which was the core portion of Justice Holmes’s reasoning in West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish (1937), the case that overruled this one.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 3, 2016
Posted Brief Above.
– Joe Anderson (Team 2)
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
with 25 mins to spare
Feb 3, 2016•Edit•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 5, 2015
In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled that a minimum wage law for women violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it abridged a citizen’s right to freely contract labor. In 1918, the District of Columbia passed a law setting a minimum wage for women and children laborers.
The Children’s Hospital of the District of Columbia, which employed many women at wages below those established by the board, sued the board on the grounds that its regulations violated liberty of contract as defined in Lochner v. New York.
In a 5-3 decision written by Justice George Sutherland, the Court struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional, arguing that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The Court cited Lochner v. New York (1905) in maintaining that the clause gives citizens equal rights “to obtain from each other the best terms they can as the result of private bargaining.” According to Justice Sutherland, the D. C. minimum wage law, by contrast, was “an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land.” The law was especially “arbitrary,” argued the Court, because it imposed uniform minimum wages on all women regardless of their individual needs or occupations.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2015
In the political cartoon it says “This decision affirms your constitutional right to starve.” and its interesting that this case is from 1923, but for a lot of people this is still a big issue today.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2015
I believe that Justice Sutherland missed an important point regarding what minimum wage really does. The point, which was brushed upon by Chief Justice Taft, is that minimum wage is a safeguard from discrimination of employers to employees; just because the courts gave women the right to vote, which in turn makes it look like women are treated equal, does not mean that ALL employers will view women as equals. Minimum wage would not be a right granted to women, but a protection from encroachment on their right to not be discriminated against. Some, especially Ms. Alice Paul, might argue that women do not need to be protected (thus the forward movement of “Equality not Protection”) but in this context is would be the protection of said equality.
Furthermore, much of the opinion was based off the other labor laws that relied on the health and morality of the employee. At no point did any justice bring up the fact that poverty does in fact lead to health problems and possibly morality problems. In a state of poverty people become desperate, they do things they might not otherwise do and in turn they may put their health in danger. If discrimination of wages toward women continue they could easily become victims of poverty and thus victims of health and morality problems. I understand that in the Bradwell days women were thought to always be taken care of by their husband, but in the post WWI era after where many women were forced to care for themselves I believe this argument becomes a bit more relevant.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2015
I’ve uploaded a brief of the case as a PDF.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2015
This case involved District of Columbia’s statute, which created a minimum wage board to set minimum wages for child labor and establish a minimum wage for women that covered “necessary cost of living”.
The court’s decision was held together with another case, Adkins v. Lyons, where there was a minimum wage law objection from a female employee.
– Aashiqui Lad
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2015
One thing that I found interesting is Justice Sutherland’s comment that since the passage of the 19th amendment, the inequality between women and men has come to a vanishing point and women’s right to vote is an example of their newfound equality in America. I don’t know if sarcasm is the correct term to use but it seems as if the Court was being sarcastic or maybe (this is a stretch) mocking women and putting the 19th Amendment in their face as to say “you now have the ‘right’ to vote, therefore, you’re treated equally and don’t deserve special protection from the Courts.”
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
this is a great point, please raise this in class when we get to the case
Feb 4, 2015•Delete
Deleted user
Deleted user
To add to that point, Justice Holmes explicitly stated “It will need more than the Nineteenth Amendment to convince me that there are no differences between men and women, or that legislation cannot take those differences into account”. Even though the Nineteenth Amendment made it seem that men and women were treated as equals, the court clearly saw the differences between them.
Feb 4, 2015•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 4, 2015
I have to agree with Justice Taft dissenting opinion, in which he states that essentially there is no distinction between the proposed minimum wage laws and the already enacted maximum hour laws- they both add restrictions to individual contracts!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 6, 2014
“The car industry is no bastion of female empowerment, so it was groundbreaking to see General Motors appoint Mary Barra as CEO in December. She is the first woman not just to run the company, but to run any global carmaker. But on the heels of that historic news came something sadly less surprising: her current pay package is less than half of what was given to the man who just vacated the role. True, as the company has pointed out, she may well get more when shareholders vote later this year on her long-term compensation package, but her base salary and short-term package are lower than the man’s before her. And she is in no way the only female executive to be paid less than the men around them.”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178243/want-see-pay-discrimination-against-women-look-top#
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Angela Betancourt
Angela Betancourt Feb 5, 2014
I am impressed by the court’s ability to equate women and men while still managing to screw women over.
Angela Betancourt Team 2
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 5, 2014
The book mentions the statute created a minimum-wage board in order to set the minimum-wage equal to “the necessary cost of living” and that it be able to maintain workers “in good health and to protect their morals” (p.35). What do they mean by “to protect their morals”? Do they mean high enough to keep workers from engaging in sex work?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 3, 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQC0SmgWxuY
A silent movie version of the Adkins v. The Children’s Hospital Supreme Court Case done by Ms. Lindner’s APUSH class 2011.
Jessica Boyd
team 2