The Oyez Project: 1922 Term Decisions

Adkins v. Children's Hospital (No. 795)

Did the law interfere with the ability of employers and employees to enter into contracts with each other without assuring due process of law, a freedom guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment?

The Court found that upholding the statute would dangerously extend the police power of the state and, thus, found it unconstitutional. Justice Sutherland recognized that the freedom of individuals to make contracts is not absolute and curtailments of this right may be justified in the face of "exceptional circumstances." However, in this case, the statute's implementation procedures were overly vague and did not act to regulate the character or method of wage payments, or the conditions and hours of labor, areas in which regulation to protect the public welfare were legitimate. The Congress simply had enacted a "price-fixing law."

Gitlow v. New York (No. 19)

Does the New York law punishing the advocacy of overthrowing the government an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The rationale of the majority has sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency" test. The legislature may decide that an entire class of speech is so dangerous that it should be prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be punished even if her speech created no danger at all.

Massachusetts v. Mellon (No. 24)

Did the expenditure of funds under the Maternity Act of 1921 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the administration of federal statutes "likely to produce addition taxation to be imposed upon a vast number of taxpayers" was essentially a matter of public and not of individual concern. The Court emphasized that it had no power to review or annul acts of Congress without showing that an individual had sustained or was in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute. Suffering "in some indefinite way in common with people generally" was not an adequate basis for judicial review.

Meyer v. Nebraska (No. 325)

Does the Nebraska statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause?

Yes, the Nebraska law is unconstitutional. Nebraska violated the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint. State regulation of liberty must be reasonably related to a proper state objective. The legislature's view of reasonableness was subject to supervision by the courts. The legislative purpose of the law was to promote assimilation and civic development. But these purposes were not adequate to justify interfering with Meyer's liberty to teach or the liberty of parents to employ him during a "time of peace and domestic tranquillity."