Holden v. Hardy
169 U.S. 366 (1898)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, under its police powers, enact laws to limit the number of hours employees can work in hazardous occupations to protect their health and safety without violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the liberty of contract.
Facts:
- In 1896, the Utah legislature passed a statute limiting the period of employment in underground mines and smelters to eight hours per day, except in emergencies.
- The statute made it a misdemeanor for any employer to violate these provisions.
- Albert F. Holden was an employer who operated an underground mine in Utah.
- Holden required one of his employees to work for ten hours in his underground mine, in a non-emergency situation.
Procedural Posture:
- Holden was charged and convicted in a Utah justice's court for violating the state's eight-hour workday law for miners.
- Holden petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Utah, arguing that his imprisonment was unlawful because the statute violated the U.S. Constitution.
- The Supreme Court of Utah, the state's highest court, denied his petition and affirmed the conviction, upholding the constitutionality of the statute.
- Holden then brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Utah state law that limits the workday to eight hours for men working in underground mines and smelters violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process by infringing upon the liberty of contract between employers and employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brown
No, the Utah law does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. A state's police power allows it to reasonably regulate contracts to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, especially in inherently dangerous occupations. The Court reasoned that the right to contract, while protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by the state's legitimate exercise of its police powers. The Court found that employment in underground mines and smelters is particularly hazardous and detrimental to worker health due to factors like foul air, high temperatures, and noxious gases. It held that the legislature is entitled to deference in its judgment that such conditions warrant special protection, so long as there are reasonable grounds for that belief. The Court also recognized the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees in such industries, noting that workers are often 'practically constrained' to accept conditions detrimental to their health. Therefore, the state may properly interpose its authority to protect vulnerable workers and the public health.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Peckham
The provided text indicates that Justices Brewer and Peckham dissented but does not include the content of their dissenting opinion.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant precedent by upholding protective labor legislation as a valid exercise of state police power, creating an important exception to the prevailing 'liberty of contract' doctrine of the Lochner era. By focusing on the inherent dangers of a specific occupation, the Court justified state intervention in the employer-employee relationship to safeguard public health. This ruling provided a constitutional foundation for future health and safety regulations, although its deference to legislative judgment would be challenged in later cases like Lochner v. New York. The case introduced a 'reasonableness' test for such regulations, requiring a substantial relationship between the law and the protection of public health or safety in a hazardous industry.
Unlock the full brief for Holden v. Hardy