The process of Lochnerization involves the examination and rejection of laws that restrict the amount of work individuals can engage in, based on the argument that such laws infringe upon the right to due process. This practice is commonly carried out by courts, particularly following the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1900s. The term “Lochnerization” originates from the landmark case of Lochner v. New York, in which the Supreme Court declared a law that imposed limits on the working hours of bakers to be unconstitutional.
Lochnerize (lok-n?r-Iz), verb. To invalidate economic legislation by using the Due Process Clause as a pretext, particularly in the manner of the U.S. Supreme Court during the early 20th century. The term derives from the ruling in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539 (1905), where the Court struck down New York’s maximum-hours law for bakers. Example: The Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v. New York exemplifies Lochnerizing. In this case, the Court invalidated a law that restricted the weekly working hours of bakers. The Court argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as it interfered with the bakers’ contractual rights. Explanation: This example demonstrates how the Supreme Court employed the Due Process Clause to nullify economic legislation that it believed impinged on the freedom to contract. The Court’s ruling in Lochner v. New York serves as a prominent instance of this practice, which became known as Lochnerizing. However, the Court’s reasoning in this case was contentious and has faced criticism from numerous legal scholars.
“Lochnerize” refers to the practice of invoking the principles established in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905). It involves advocating for limited government intervention in economic matters and emphasizing individual liberty and freedom of contract.
Lochnerization continues to be relevant in legal discussions, particularly in debates surrounding economic regulations and the balance between individual rights and government intervention. However, its influence has diminished over time, and many legal scholars and judges criticize Lochnerization as an outdated and discredited approach.
Critics argue that Lochnerization promotes an overly rigid interpretation of the Constitution, undermines the ability of the government to regulate in the public interest, and fails to adequately consider the power imbalances between employers and employees. They also contend that Lochnerization has historically been used to justify discriminatory practices and hinder social progress.
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) effectively overturned Lochner v. New York. In West Coast Hotel, the Court upheld minimum wage legislation and rejected Lochner’s strict scrutiny approach, establishing a more deferential standard of review for economic regulations.
While Lochnerization is primarily associated with economic matters, some argue that its principles can be extended to non-economic issues involving individual rights and liberties. However, this interpretation remains controversial and is not widely accepted.
Lochnerization is closely tied to the concept of substantive due process, which holds that certain fundamental rights are protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Lochner v. New York is often cited as a prominent example of substantive due process jurisprudence.
Yes, Lochnerization has been invoked in various legal challenges to economic regulations, such as minimum wage laws, maximum hour restrictions, and occupational licensing requirements. However, its success rate has significantly declined since the mid-20th century.
Lochnerization is primarily associated with U.S. constitutional law and has not been widely adopted in other countries. The principles underlying Lochner v. New York are often seen as unique to the American legal system.
The Lochner era, characterized by a more restrictive approach to economic regulations, has had a lasting impact on Supreme Court jurisprudence. While subsequent decisions have moved away from Lochner’s strict scrutiny standard, the tension between individual rights and government regulation continues to shape the Court’s rulings.
Lochnerization remains a topic of scholarly debate in legal academia. While some scholars argue for a revival of Lochner’s principles, many others view it as a discredited approach and advocate for a more balanced and contextual analysis of economic regulations.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 16th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/lochnerize/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Lochnerize. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/lochnerize/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Lochnerize. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/lochnerize/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Lochnerize. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/lochnerize/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts