Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1923

Adkins v. Children's Hospital of Columbia

261 U.S. 525 | 43 S. Ct. 394 | 67 L. Ed. 785 | 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2588 | 24 A.L.R. 1238

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Adkins was a Lochner-era decision that invalidated minimum wages for adult women as an impermissible interference with liberty of contract; it was later overruled by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

Background

Congress enacted the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act of 1918, creating a board authorized to set minimum wages for women and minors. For adult women, the statutory standard was a wage sufficient to cover the necessary cost of living and to maintain health and morals. Employers who paid below a board-established minimum faced criminal penalties, although women with impaired earning capacity could receive special licenses permitting lower wages.

Children's Hospital employed adult women under voluntarily agreed wage arrangements that in some cases fell below the board's required minimum. Lyons, a twenty-one-year-old elevator operator, wished to retain a light, satisfactory job paying $35 per month plus meals, but her employer discharged her rather than violate the wage order. Both challenged enforcement of the Act under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The District trial court denied relief. On rehearing, however, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia held the Act unconstitutional, directed injunctions against enforcement, and later affirmed the resulting final decrees. The Minimum Wage Board appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Court of Appeals lacked authority to grant a rehearing after it had initially denied one, thereby undermining the proceedings below.

Holding

No. The Court declined to examine the earlier rehearing proceedings because the cases before it arose from later, properly entertained appeals.

Reasoning

The challenged rehearing occurred during the first set of appeals. The Supreme Court was reviewing final decrees entered after second appeals, and there was no serious doubt that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide those second appeals. The Board itself had invoked that jurisdiction, so it could not successfully attack the resulting proceedings on this ground.

Issue #2

Whether the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, as applied to adult women capable of contracting for themselves, violated liberty of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Holding

Yes. The Act unconstitutionally interfered with the liberty of adult women and employers to agree on wages in private employment.

Reasoning

The Court treated freedom to contract, including contracts for labor, as part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. Although contractual freedom was not absolute, legislative restraints required exceptional circumstances and a reasonable connection to a legitimate exercise of governmental power.

reasoning?

Dissents

Chief Justice Taft

Reasoning

Chief Justice Taft argued that minimum-wage laws rest on a legislative judgment that poorly paid workers lack genuine bargaining equality and may accept exploitative terms because of economic necessity. Whether a minimum wage is economically wise or may sometimes harm workers is a policy question for Congress, not a basis for judicial invalidation where Congress could reasonably conclude that the measure would benefit workers and the public.

reasoning?

Justice Holmes

Reasoning

Justice Holmes maintained that Congress's authority was clear. Protecting women from conditions contributing to ill health, immorality, and social deterioration was a legitimate legislative end, and a minimum wage was a means that reasonable legislators could believe would advance that end.

reasoning?