Trust Busting and Government Regulations on Economy & Industry in the Progressive Era
brief and upheld the constitutionality of the original Oregon law, House Bill No. In his published opinion, Justice Brewer claimed that “[a] woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. The Oregon law stated that women could not work more than ten hours a day in jobs associated with factories and laundries. As a result in, many legislators created many statutes and laws that reformed labor practices, minimum wage, and maximum work hours.In response to keeping up with the initiative if the Progressive Era, the state of Oregon followed suit. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time.
His lawyer, William D. Fenton, proclaimed that the state statute was, in fact, in violation of the 14th amendment of right to due process. Uncategorized No Comments MULLER V OREGON. This unique legal brief set a precedent for including social and economic information within legal arguments and gained Brandeis a reputation for thinking outside the box. The 9-0 decision created a precedent that further separated the sexes and encouraged legislature that would push women into a field of subordination. The Oregon law stated that women could not work more than ten hours a day in jobs associated with factories and laundries.
The court argue that the act is not in conflict with the Federal Constitution. Progressive Politics: Definition, Reforms & Amendments
“The Gender Basis of American Social Policy.” Muller v. Oregon was decided in 1908, during the Progressive Era.
This case bears a mixed reputation in modern America. It later became known as the “Brandeis Brief”.
The defense attorney, Louis D. Brandeis, contested that if he could prove the law was protecting health and safety of women workers, the court would sustain it.
“Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) -.” “Backgrounder on the Court Opinion on the Muller v. Oregon Case.” Becker, Mary E. “From Muller v. Oregon to Fetal Vulnerability Policies.” http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1599748?ref=search-gateway:98c802c0dc5a31d97702bdbbef164188“Key Supreme Court Cases: Muller v. Oregon (ABA Division for Public Education).” Key Supreme Court Cases: Muller v. Oregon (ABA Division for Public Education)http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/muller.html“Ladies, Laundries, And Eventually The Third Reich.” http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/muller_v_oregon.htmlLawyers And Coffee.
Muller v. Oregon.
9:59 Kadedra Caldwell, Uzair Rangoonwala, Lashanah Thomas, and Perrin Williams (Fall 2016)In the future, it would be helpful to find the exact date and year of when the case was heard in Oregon Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court.Oregon was a Supreme Court case decided on February 24, 1908.
The Brandeis brief was later used by another up-and-coming lawyer, Thurgood Marshall, to persuade the Supreme Court that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in the landmark case of One of the biggest questions at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was how to deal with the increasing number of women entering the workforce as America shifted from a rural to an urban way of life. 89 (enacted by the State of Oregon’s 22nd Legislative Assembly)Andrew.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court acknowledged the importance and significance of the brief in their published opinion. The ideal role for women of the time was to work inside their homes, keepi…
William McKinley: Facts, Biography, Presidency & AssassinationFacts About the Titanic: History, Sinking & SurvivorsThe Workingmen's Compensation Act: Definition & Significance credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.Not sure what college you want to attend yet? A time period that began around 1890 and lasted well into the 1920s. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324, 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1452, 52 L. Ed. During this particular era, Americans sought out to improve worst aspects of industrialization.
The Brandeis brief is often seen as the most positive outcome of the case. 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. In every effort to validate his claim, Brandeis produced and submitted a 113 page document describing the negative sociological effects of long-hour work to women’s health. Although many Progressive laws were made with good intentions, some Americans found the limits to be overly restrictive.