Cases - 1907 term

Twining v. New Jersey

Thu, 19 Mar 1908 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance

20 West State Street Trenton NJ 08625

Trenton, NJ 08625

United States

40° 13' 14.7612" N, 74° 45' 58.8168" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Twining

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Fuller Court (1906-1909)

Decided By

Fuller Court (1906-1909)

Opinion

211 U.S. 78 (1908)

Argued

Thursday, March 19, 1908

Decided

Monday, November 9, 1908

Facts of the Case

Twining, a bank director, was charged with a misdemeanor (deceiving a bank examiner). Twining declined to testify at his trial. Under New Jersey law, the prosecutor commented upon Twining's failure to testify. A jury convicted Twining; he appealed.

Question

Does comment upon a defendant's failure to testify violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Neither the Privileges and Immunities Clause nor the Due Process Clause embraces the right against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment. Moody rested the Court's opinion on the historical record, which led him to the view that the right against self-incrimination was not fundamental.

Adair v. United States

Tue, 29 Oct 1907 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

315 West Southern Avenue Covington KY 41015

Covington, KY 41015

United States

39° 2' 52.8" N, 84° 30' 29.4444" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

293

Petitioner

Adair

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Fuller Court (1906-1909)

Decided By

Fuller Court (1906-1909)

Opinion

208 U.S. 161 (1908)

Argued

Tuesday, October 29, 1907

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1908

Facts of the Case

A law passed by Congress in 1898 made it illegal for employers to fire employees solely on the basis of their participation in labor unions. The law essentially made the "yellow dog" contract illegal. William Adair, a representative of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, violated the law by firing a locomotive fireman who had joined a union.

Question

Did the law violate the right of employers and employees to enter into contracts with each other as protected by the Fifth Amendment which prevents government from depriving an individual of liberty or property without due process of law?

Conclusion

The Court found that the statute violated the Constitution and was not a legitimate exercise of congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Justice Harlan argued that it is important to preserve the balance of freedoms which exists between employers and employees: "The right of a person to sell his labor upon such terms as he deems proper is, in essence, the same as the right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell it." The law violated the liberties of both employers and employees since it compelled them to accept certain conditions in the purchasing and selling of labor.

Muller v. Oregon

Wed, 15 Jan 1908 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Grand Laundry

320 N. 17th Avenue Portland OR 97209

Portland, OR 97209

United States

45° 31' 30.4932" N, 122° 41' 17.664" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

107

Petitioner

Muller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Fuller Court (1906-1909)

Decided By

Fuller Court (1906-1909)

Opinion

208 U.S. 412 (1908)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1908

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1908

Facts of the Case

Oregon enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries.

Question

Does the Oregon law violate a woman's freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

There was no constitutional violation. The factory and laundry owners claimed that there was no reasonable connection between the law and public health, safety, or welfare. In a famous brief in defense of the Oregon law, attorney Louis Brandeis elaborately detailed expert reports on the harmful physical, economic and social effects of long working hours on women. Brewer's opinion was based on the proposition that physical and social differences between the sexes warranted a different rule respecting labor contracts. Theretofore, gender was not a basis for such distinctions. Brewer's opinion conveyed the accepted wisdom of the day: that women were unequal and inferior to men.