who was the lawyer in the case muller vs oregon

What was the case of Muller v Oregon?

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.

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.

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.….

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 did Louis Brandeis do in Muller v. Oregon?

In 1907, Florence Kelley and Josephine Goldmark hired Louis D. Brandeis to represent the state of Oregon in Muller v. Oregon (208 US 412), a case before the US Supreme Court that involved the constitutionality of limiting hours for female laundry workers.

Why did Muller believe the Oregon law was unconstitutional?

Muller believed the Oregon law was unconstitutional because it violated his freedom of contract under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause under the rule of Lochner and was not a valid health regulation.

Who was president during Muller vs Oregon?

(1837-1910): Brewer, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1889-1910), was appointed to the High Court bench by President Benjamin Harrison. He delivered the unanimous opinion in the Muller v. State of Oregon case.

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.

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.

What led to Muller v. Oregon?

At issue was an Oregon law passed in 1903 that prohibited women from working more than 10 hours in one day. Curt Muller, a laundry owner, was charged in 1905 with permitting a supervisor to require Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than 10 hours and was fined $10.

Who wrote the opinion in Muller v. Oregon?

Justice David BrewerJustice David Brewer wrote the majority opinion. In his that no women could not work more than 10 hours a day in factories and laundry.

How did the Court rule in regard to the Oregon law in question in Muller v. Oregon?

Oregon enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. The owner of a laundry business, Curt Muller, was fined $10 when he violated the law. Muller appealed the conviction. The state supreme court upheld the law's constitutionality.

How does the Court's decision in Muller differ from its decision in Lochner?

Lochner and Muller were two attempts to curb state regulation of business. In Lochner , the Court overturned a New York State law meant to regulate the hours that bakers could work, but three years later, in Muller , the justices upheld an Oregon regulation limiting the hours that women could work.

Who won West Coast v Parrish?

In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that Washington State could impose minimum wage regulations on private employers without violating the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

What was the significance of Muller v. Oregon?

Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. Women were provided by state mandate lesser work-hours than allotted to men. The posed question was whether women's liberty to negotiate a contract with an employer should be equal to a man's.

How much was Muller fined?

Muller was fined $10. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction.

Which amendment was the Oregon limit on working hours?

Holding. Oregon'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 membership. Chief Justice.

Who argued the Goldmark case?

Her brother-in-law, the future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, argued the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Goldmark and Brandeis's innovation would come to be known as a " Brandeis Brief ," and many others would later be modeled on it.".

Is the Oregon maximum hours law unconstitutional?

The State of Oregon. Appellant's claim: Oregon's 1903 maximum hours law is unconstitutional. Oregon'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.

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 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.

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.

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.”.

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.

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 ...

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 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.

Background of the Case

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, life in America shifted from a largely rural style of living where most Americans lived and worked on farms or ranches to an increasingly urban lifestyle where most Americans lived and worked in industrial cities.

The Decision

Brandeis wrote a unique legal brief, which later became known as the Brandeis brief, in which there were only two pages of legal arguments followed by over one hundred pages of statistics and expert opinions from social scientists who argued that women were psychically, mentally, and emotionally unable to work for more than ten hours at a time.

Legacy of the Case

Today, the decision in Muller v. Oregon is viewed with mixed results. The notion that workers must be protected from their employers by limiting the number of hours they can be mandated to work is often seen as a positive aspect of this case.

Summary

• 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...

See more on sites.gsu.edu

Background

Procedural History

Issues

Decision

Majority Opinion

Full Text of Opinion

Significance / Impact

Constitutional Provisions

Important Precedents

Overview

Background

Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry business, was convicted of violating Oregon labor laws by making a female employee work more than ten hours in a single day. Muller was fined $10. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction.
Louis Brandeis, the young attorney who used social science to argue that women workers needed special protec…

Judgment

Significance of the case

See also

Further reading

External links