Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Muller v. Oregon
 | |
| Muller v. Oregon | |
| Reference: 208 U.S. 412 | |
| Term: 1908 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: January 15, 1908 Decided: February 24, 1908 | |
| Outcome | |
| Oregon Supreme Court affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| David Josiah Brewer • Melville Weston Fuller • John Harlan I • Edward Douglass White • Rufus Wheeler Peckham • Joseph McKenna • Oliver Wendell Holmes • William Rufus Day • William Henry Moody | |
Muller v. Oregon is a case decided on February 24, 1908, by the United States Supreme Court holding that states can restrict working hours for women to protect their health. The case concerned the constitutionality of an Oregon state law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries per day. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court.[1][2][3]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that states could restrict the number of hours women were allowed to work. To read more about the impact of Muller v. Oregon click here.
Background
The state of Oregon enacted a law restricting women to ten hours of work per day in factories and laundries. The state argued that the law was enacted to protect women's health. Curt Muller, who owned a laundry business, received a $10 fine for violating the law. Muller appealed the fine, arguing that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the fine and the constitutionality of the law.[1][3]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on January 15, 1908. The case was decided on February 24, 1908.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided unanimously to affirm the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. Justice David Josiah Brewer delivered the opinion of the court.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice David Josiah Brewer, writing for the court, argued that the Oregon law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Brewer contended that differences in women's social role and physical structure established public interest for the state to protect women's health.[2]
| “ | Still again, history discloses the fact that woman has always been dependent upon man. He established his control at the outset by superior physical strength, and this control in various forms, with diminishing intensity, has continued to the present. As minors, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the courts as needing especial care that her rights may be preserved. Education was long denied her, and while now the doors of the schoolroom are opened and her opportunities for acquiring knowledge are great, yet, even with that and the consequent increase of capacity for business affairs, it is still true that, in the struggle for subsistence, she is not an equal competitor with her brother. Though limitations upon personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights. She will still be where some legislation to protect her seems necessary to secure a real equality of right. Doubtless there are individual exceptions, and there are many respects in which she has an advantage over him; but, looking at it from the viewpoint of the effort to maintain an independent position in life, she is not upon an equality. Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained even when like legislation is not necessary for men, and could not be sustained. It is impossible to close one's eyes to the fact that she still looks to her brother, and depends upon him. Even though all restrictions on political, personal, and contractual rights were taken away, and she stood, so far as statutes are concerned, upon an absolutely equal plane with him, it would still be true that she is so constituted that she will rest upon and look to him for protection; that her physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal functions -- having in view not merely her own health, but the wellbeing of the race -- justify legislation to protect her from the greed, as well as the passion, of man. The limitations which this statute places upon her contractual powers, upon her right to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labor, are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all. Many words cannot make this plainer. The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence of vigorous health upon the future wellbeing of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation, and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her.[4] | ” |
| —David Josiah Brewer, majority opinion in Muller v. Oregon[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Due Process Clause
Muller v. Oregon established that states could restrict the working hours of women to protect their health. The decision in this case was the subject of conflicting reactions. Some individuals supported the ruling as a means to improve working conditions for women, while others opposed the decision for impeding equal rights and "restrict[ing] the economic opportunities available to women."[2][5]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Muller v. Oregon," accessed September 28, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Justia, "Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)," accessed September 28, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 LexisNexis, "Muller v. Oregon - 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324 (1908)," accessed September 28, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Britannica, "Muller v. State of Oregon," accessed September 28, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
