Bunting v. Oregon

Tue, 18 Apr 1916 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bunting

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1916)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

243 U.S. 426 (1917)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1916

Decided

Monday, April 9, 1917

Facts of the Case

A 1913 state law prescribed a 10-hour day for men and women, expanding the law regulating women's hours upheld in Muller v. Oregon. The measure also required time-and-a-half wages for overtime up to 3 hours a day. The State asserted that the law was an appropriate exercise of its police powers. Bunting failed to comply with the overtime regulations of the statute.

Question

Did the law interfere with liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

The Court upheld the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court and found the law constitutional. Relying on the justifications made by the Oregon court and legislature, Justice McKenna dismissed Bunting's contention that the law did nothing to preserve the health of employees. The Court found that the law did not provide an unfair advantage to certain types of employers in the labor market since it regulated the hours of service for workers and not the wages that they earned. Under the Oregon statute, workers and their employers were still free to implement a wage scheme which was agreeable to both of them.

Buchanan v. Warley

jgoldman — Mon, 10 Apr 1916 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Buchanan

Corner of 37th Street and Pflanz Avenue Louisville KY 40212

Louisville, KY 40212

United States

38° 16' 25.356" N, 85° 48' 29.1816" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Buchanan

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Warley

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

White Court (1916-1921)

Decided By

White Court (1916-1921)

Opinion

245 U.S. 60 (1917)

Argued

April 10-11, 1916

Reargued:

Friday, April 27, 1917

Decided

Monday, November 5, 1917

Advocates

Clayton B. Blakey (argued the cause for the plaintiff in error)

Moorfield Storey (argued the cause for the plaintiff in error)

Stuart Chevalier (argued the cause for the defendant in error)

Pendleton Beckley (argued the cause for the defendant in error)

Facts of the Case

Buchanan was a white individual who sold a house to Warley, a black individual in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville had an ordinance that prohibited blacks from living on a block where the majority of residents were white. Since 8 of 10 houses were occupied by whites, Warley was not allowed to live on the block. Buchanan sued Warley in Jefferson County Circuit Court to complete the sale. Warley cited the city ordinance as the reason for non-completion of the sale. The question went to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Buchanan alleged that the ordinance violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the statute.

Question

Did Louisville's ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals and ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional. In an opinion written by Justice William R. Day, the Court recognized Louisville's interest in exercising its police power and the "promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare." However, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment "[assured] to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights…enjoyed by white persons." Louisville's interest did not justify the ordinance, which would "deny rights created or protected by the Federal Constitution." Therefore, the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Cases - 1915 term

Bunting v. Oregon

Buchanan v. Warley

Location