198 U.S. 45 (1905)
The New York legislature passed a labor law in 1897 that regulated bakeries and confectionery establishments.1
Section 110 of article 8 of that law stated that no employee shall be required or permitted to work more than sixty hours in any one week or more than ten hours in any one day.2
This applied unless for the purpose of making a shorter work day on the last day of the week.3
The plaintiff in error violated the one hundred and tenth section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and permitted an employe working for him to work more than sixty hours in one week.4 The charge arose from a voluntary contract rather than any use of physical force.5
The judgments of the County Court of Oneida County, the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals of New York upheld the conviction under the statute, although several judges dissented.6 The record indicated that the state courts had viewed the law as a measure relating to public health.7
The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States after argument on February 23 and 24, 1905. The Court rendered its decision on April 17, 1905.8
Whether the New York statute limiting hours of labor in bakeries and confectionery establishments to ten hours per day and sixty hours per week is a valid exercise of the state's police power?9
The police power of the state extends to regulations protecting health, safety, morals, and general welfare, but such a law must have a direct relation as a means to an end that is appropriate and legitimate before it can interfere with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor.10
No. The statute applied to the plaintiff in error by forbidding any contract that allowed an employee to work more than ten hours in a day or sixty hours in a week.11 Baking lacks the special health hazards present in underground mining that justified limits in Holden v. Hardy.12 The law contained no emergency exception and rested on no demonstrated direct connection between hours worked and public health risks in that trade.13
These features render the measure an arbitrary interference rather than a legitimate exercise of police power.14
The statute is not a valid exercise of the state's police power.15
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by White And Day, Jj.
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the statute was enacted to protect the physical well-being of those who work in bakery and confectionery establishments.16 He maintained that the statute has a real and substantial relation to the protection of health.17 Harlan observed that the labor of bakers is among the hardest imaginable because it occurs in overheated workshops during long and irregular night hours that deprive workers of necessary rest.18
He cited medical authorities and labor statistics showing elevated disease rates and shorter lifespans among bakers compared with other trades.19 Harlan concluded that the Court should sustain the statute because it is not shown to be plainly and palpably inconsistent with the Constitution.20
Justice Holmes dissented on the ground that this case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain.21 He stated that the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.22 Holmes argued that a reasonable man might think the statute a proper measure on the score of health.23
He maintained that the liberty secured by the Constitution does not import an absolute right in each person to be wholly freed from restraint.24 Holmes concluded that the judgment should be affirmed because the law embodies a dominant opinion that does not plainly infringe fundamental principles understood by the traditions of our people and our law.25
Whether the statute violates the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?26
The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.27 The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment unless there are circumstances which exclude the right through legitimate exercise of the police power.28
Yes. The statute necessarily interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employees concerning the number of hours in which the latter may labor in the bakery of the employer.29 The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Under that provision no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.30
The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment unless there are circumstances which exclude the right. The statute lacks a direct relation to health as a means to an end. It therefore constitutes an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family.
The statute violates the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.31
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by White And Day, Jj.
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the liberty of contract may within limits be subjected to regulations designed and calculated to promote the general welfare or to guard the public health.32 He explained that this right is subject to limitations the State may lawfully impose in the exercise of its police powers.33 Harlan emphasized that the statute must be taken as expressing the belief of the people of New York that labor in excess of sixty hours during a week in such establishments may endanger the health of those who thus labor.34
He argued that courts should not annul such legislation unless it is plainly and palpably beyond legislative power.35 Harlan would affirm the judgment because the connection between the hours limit and worker health supplies a sufficient basis under settled precedent.36
Justice Holmes dissented on the ground that the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.37 He stated that it is settled by decisions such as Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Holden v. Hardy that state laws may regulate life in many ways which interfere with the liberty to contract.38 Holmes maintained that a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory of laissez faire.39
He argued that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when used to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion unless a rational and fair man would necessarily admit that the statute infringes fundamental principles.40 Holmes concluded that no such sweeping condemnation applies to the New York hours law.41