What was the main argument of each side in Muller v Oregon? In Muller vs. Oregon, a laundry owner argued that limiting women to a ten-hour work day was an unconstitutional violation of their right to choose their own employment.
What was the significance of the Muller v Oregon case?
Muller v. Oregon (1908) Muller v. Oregon (1908) is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a state could limit the amount of hours a woman could work while not also limiting the hours of men. In this case, Curt Muller owned a laundry business.
What did David Brewer do in Muller v Oregon?
David J. Brewer. …wrote the majority opinion in Muller v. Oregon (1908), sustaining a state law that limited to 10 the daily working hours of women factory employees. From 1895 to 1897 he served as president of the commission appointed by Congress to investigate the boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana.….
Who was the lawyer for Muller in the Muller v Nixon case?
A local judge fined Muller, who appealed the decision, putting the case on the path that would lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. Muller’s attorney for the appeal was William Fenton, an opponent of state intervention in the economy.
Why did Curt Muller appeal his conviction?
He was charged with violating the law by allowing a woman at his laundry forced to work more than 10 hours in a given work day. After being convicted and charged with a $10 fine, Curt Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. Muller claimed that the charges violated his right to freely contract under the US Constitution.
What is the main argument of the Muller v Oregon?
Muller v. Oregon (1908) is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a state could limit the amount of hours a woman could work while not also limiting the hours of men.
What argument did the Supreme Court give in Muller v Oregon to justify regulating women's labor?
Muller v. OregonSubsequentNoneHoldingOregon's limit on the working hours of women was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was justified by the strong state interest in protecting women's health. Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed.Court membership11 more rows
Why did the courts in Muller vs Oregon side with the workers?
Muller v. State of Oregon, U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1908 that, although it appeared to promote the health and welfare of female workers, in fact led to additional protective legislation that was detrimental to equality in the workplace for years to come.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Muller v Oregon quizlet?
Terms in this set (4) A supreme court case decided in 1908 that pertained to the working hours of women. The court ruled in favor of Oregon, that these restrictions were legal under the state laws to protect women's health.
Which of the following is true of the Supreme Court's decision in Muller v. Oregon?
Which of the following is true of the Supreme Court's decision in Muller v. Oregon? In reaching its decision, the Court considered scientific evidence showing the harmful effects of long working hours.
What was the vote in Muller vs Oregon?
Decision. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, the justices voted 9-0 in favor of Oregon. The majority opinion was written by Associate Justice David Brewer. His opinion was drafted in regards to whether or not the previous law passed in Oregon violated women's right of freedom of contract.
Why did the Muller v. Oregon case cause controversy?
In Muller vs. Oregon, a laundry owner argued that limiting women to a ten-hour work day was an unconstitutional violation of their right to choose their own employment. Due in large part to a unique legal brief by Louis Brandeis, the Supreme Court concluded that the states could limit the working hours of women.
In what way did the Court ruling in Muller v. Oregon contradict the ideas behind the women's rights movement?
In what way did the court ruling Muller vs. Oregon contradict the ideas behind the women's rights movement? This ruling stated that it was legal to consider women separate class from men. and so it was fair to limit their work hours.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Muller?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Muller? Give reasons for your answer? Yes, Muller broke the law that was in place. Why was the Espionage Act passed?
Why is Muller v. Oregon 1908 considered a landmark case quizlet?
Muller v. Oregon (1908) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) are considered landmark cases in the history of forensic psychology because they: signified the use of social science research in court rulings.
Why did the Supreme Court protect female workers quizlet?
Coming on the heels of Lochner v. New York, it established a different standard for male and female workers., In 1908, Louis Brandeis persuaded the Supreme Court to accept the constitutionality of laws protecting women workers by presenting evidence of the harmful effects of factory labor on women's weaker bodies.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold laws limiting women's hours in the 1908 case Muller v. Oregon?
The Court distinguished Lochner v. New York, which invalidated a similar law restricting the hours of bakers, on the basis of the “difference between the sexes.” The Court reasoned that the child-bearing nature and social role of women provided a strong state interest in reducing their working hours.
What did the Muller case argue about?
Fenton, contended that the statute violated Mrs. Gotcher’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by preventing her from freely contracting with her employer. However, the attorney for the state, Louis D. Brandeis, chose to argue on the grounds that women needed “special protection” by virtue of their physical differences from men. In what became known as the “Brandeis brief,” a 113-page document outlining quasiscientific data on the negative effects of long working hours on both women and men, he focused particularly on women’s dependent and biologically reproductive roles as opposed to economic issues. The court, referring to the “proper discharge of her maternal functions” and the “well-being of the race,” wrote that a woman “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.”
What does the court mean by "proper discharge of her maternal functions"?
The court, referring to the “proper discharge of her maternal functions” and the “well-being of the race,” wrote that a woman “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.”.
What did the Court decide in Muller v. Oregon?
The decision in Muller v. Oregon resulted in other state laws related to wages, work hours, and work conditions.
What was the primary tabs in Muller v. Oregon?
Oregon (1908) Primary tabs. Muller v. Oregon (1908) is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a state could limit the amount of hours a woman could work while not also limiting the hours of men. In this case, Curt Muller owned a laundry business.
Which court affirmed the Oregon Supreme Court decision?
Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, who affirmed the decision. On writ of error, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and considered whether the Oregon law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How many hours did the Oregon state law require women to work?
On September 4, 1905, he required a female employee to work more than ten hours in a single day. This conflicted with an Oregon law that allowed for a maximum of ten hour workdays for women who worked in mechanical establishments, factories, and laundries.
What was the significance of Muller v. Oregon?
Muller v. Oregon, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era , upheld an Oregon law limiting the workday for female wage earners to ten hours. The case established a precedent in 1908 to expand the reach of state activity into the realm of protective labor legislation.
Who was the attorney for the case of Muller v. State?
Supreme Court. Muller’s attorney for the appeal was William Fenton, an opponent of state intervention in the economy.
What did Florence Kelley believe about the Lochner case?
Yet, many advocates of reform, like Florence Kelley of the National Consumers' Union, believed that the protection of women would open the door for greater state protections of workers. She sought a means to get around Supreme Court decisions that had closed down the ungendered path. Most notably, in the Lochner decision of 1905, the Court had ruled unconstitutional a New York law that had limited the hours of employment bakeries could impose on their workers, all of whom were male, on the grounds that it was an unhealthful profession. Kelley sought out attorney Louis Brandeis to write the defense brief in the Muller case. His use of social scientific research to argue that women were adversely affected by long hours of labor was an attempt to get around the Lochner decision.
What was the Lochner decision?
Most notably, in the Lochner decision of 1905, the Court had ruled unconstitutional a New York law that had limited the hours of employment bakeries could impose on their workers, all of whom were male, on the grounds that it was an unhealthful profession.
How would Brandeis's theory affect future mothers?
Brandeis argued that future mothers would be harmed by overwork in factories, reducing their capacity for childbearing and resulting in weakened children. Further, families would be harmed by the loss of female service in the home.
Who wrote the defense brief in the Muller case?
Kelley sought out attorney Louis Brandeis to write the defense brief in the Muller case. His use of social scientific research to argue that women were adversely affected by long hours of labor was an attempt to get around the Lochner decision.
Who said the state has no right to lay any disability upon women?
While the argument aimed to prevent the state from gaining any right to regulate economic activity, it also expressed the sentiment of many feminists of the era, including Clara Colby , the editor of the Portland -based Woman’s Tribune: “The state has no right to lay any disability upon woman as an individual.”.
What was the purpose of the Muller v. Oregon case?
Muller v. Oregon was a Supreme Court case decided on February 24, 1908. It was based on an Oregon law that was passed in 1903 that set working hours for women. The Oregon law stated that women could not work more than ten hours a day in jobs associated with factories and laundries. The statue was brought under scrutiny when Curt Muller, an owner of a laundry facility, was found in violation. He was charged with violating the law by allowing a woman at his laundry forced to work more than 10 hours in a given work day. After being convicted and charged with a $10 fine, Curt Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. Muller claimed that the charges violated his right to freely contract under the US Constitution. During this case, the question of if the law passed violated the women equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The attorney general Louis D. Brandeis defended the law and argued in court on ways in which working long hours is detrimental to women’s health. He also developed a brief known as the Brandeis Brief in which he listed many reasons in support of his argument as to why women were not fully equipped to work for long hours. With a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the law passed by the state of Oregon was in fact constitutional.
What was the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Oregon?
The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Oregon, and so did the majority of the country. Although it followed incredibly sexist ideals, at the time of the decision it was seen as a great triumph for a population of women across the country. Following the precedent, multiple states created new laws and statutes that regulated wages, hours, and working conditions.
What was the Supreme Court's opinion on Lochner v. New York?
His opinion was drafted in regards to whether or not the previous law passed in Oregon violated women’s right of freedom of contract. Which was an implicit liberty protected by the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the Supreme Court of the United States defining women as “special”, the judgement made by Oregon’s Supreme Court was affirmed. The decision in Lochner v. New York in 1905 was cited to present the case that women did indeed fit the description of “ special because they were in need of protection to fulfill her role as a female.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the Muller v. Oregon case?
The Court upheld the lower court’s decision because women are uniquely qualified to fulfill these roles, and it was established that the natural order of society was for women to depend on men to work the long hours. Muller v. Oregon Case Brief.
What was the case of Muller v. Oregon?
Oregon, Supreme Court of the United States, (1908) Case summary for Muller v. Oregon: An Oregon state law restricted a women’s working hours to ten per day. After being convicted of requiring a woman to violate the statute, Muller, a laundry business owner, challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The state courts continued to find ...
Who did Muller appeal to?
In response, Muller appealed to the state supreme court. After they found for the state, Muller appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who granted certiorari.
What was the law in Oregon that allowed women to work more than 10 hours a day?
Statement of the facts: Oregon’s legislature passed a law which limited the working hours of female employees. Under the law passed in 1903, a woman could not work more than ten hours a day. Mr. Curt Muller was convicted of violating the statute when he required a woman to work over the limit at his laundry facility.
Summary
- Muller v. Oregon, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era, upheld an Oregon law limiting the workday for female wage earners to ten hours. The case established a precedent in 1908 to expand the reach of state activity into the realm of protective labor legislation. The defense, in what is known as the Brandeis Brie...
Background
Procedural History
Issues
Decision
Majority Opinion
- Muller v. Oregon was a Supreme Court case decided on February 24, 1908. It was based on an Oregon law that was passed in 1903 that set working hours for women. The Oregon law stated that women could not work more than ten hours a day in jobs associated with factories and laundries. The statue was brought under scrutiny when Curt Muller, an owner of...
Full Text of Opinion
- Muller v. Oregon was decided in 1908, during the Progressive Era. A time period that began around 1890 and lasted well into the 1920s. During this particular era, Americans sought out to improve worst aspects of industrialization. This included tackling issues like workers’ health, environmental hazards and labor discrimination. As a result in, many legislators created many st…
Significance / Impact
- On September 18, 1905 a complaint was filed at the State of Oregon Circuit Court against Curt Muller, owner of Grand Laundry. He was convicted of violating House Bill No. 89, a state statute which placed restrictions on the working hours of women. Muller was fined $10 for violating the state statute by requiring Mrs. Emma Gotcher to work more than 10 hours in a single day. Mulle…
Constitutional Provisions
- Does the statute created by Oregon violate the right to freely contract under the Constitution?
- Does a state regulation of working hours for women violate equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment?
- Did Oregon surpass its police power by regulating the working hours of women in certain occupations?
Important Precedents
- The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, the justices voted 9-0 in favor of Oregon. The majority opinion was written by Associate Justice David Brewer. His opinion was drafted in regards to whether or not the previous law passed in Oregon violated women’s right of freedom of contract. Which was an implicit liberty protected by the due process of the Fourteenth Amendm…