scholarly journals The Supreme Court and the Minimum Wage

1923 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 852-856
Author(s):  
Edward Berman
1926 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray A. Brown ◽  
The National Consumers' League

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman

The 1936 term of the Supreme Court will probably be rated a notable one. This is due both to the Court's own work, and to certain extraneous occurrences which could hardly fail to have some impact upon it. In any attempt to evaluate the work of this term, one should bear in mind the following facts: First, a month after the Court convened President Roosevelt was reëlected by one of the most impressive popular and electoral majorities in our political history. Second, in February the President submitted to Congress his proposal for the reorganization of the Supreme Court, including the enlargement of its membership by the addition, up to fifteen, of a new justice for every one remaining on the Court beyond the age of seventy. This proposal aroused violent opposition, the debates on it continued for many months, and ultimately the plan was defeated largely through the efforts of the President's own party. The discussions on this proposal were going on during much of the time in which the Court was sitting. Third, in every case in which New Deal laws were attacked, they were held valid. These results were accomplished in many instances by five-to-four margins, and in the Minimum Wage Case by a five-to-four reversal of a previous five-to-three decision.


Author(s):  
Nancy Woloch

This chapter examines Muller's aftermath in legal history through the landmark case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). In Oregon, an employer (Children's Hospital) sought an injunction against the DC Minimum Wage Board to restrain it from imposing the minimum wage of $16.50 per week for women workers in hotels, hospitals, restaurants, clubs, and apartment houses. The District of Columbia Supreme Court upheld the law in June 1920, as did the DC Court of Appeals in June 1921. However, at the second hearing in November 1922, the DC Court of Appeals upset the law. In 1923, when Adkins v. Children's Hospital reached the Supreme Court, defenders of the minimum wage faced a less receptive roster of justices than they had in 1917; recent appointments made in wartime and soon after had produced a more conservative court. As such, the Supreme Court failed to sustain the District of Columbia minimum wage law by a 5–3 decision.


1926 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 246
Author(s):  
Arthur Garfield Hays ◽  
National Consumers' League

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E Prasch

Beginning in 1912, a number of states passed minimum wage legislation that applied exclusively to women and minors. These tentative experiments in economic legislation ended in 1923 when the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's minimum wage law. Remarkably, at this time virtually all professional American economists supported some variety of minimum wage legislation; however, they did not all give the same reasons. This paper briefly examines the context in which this minimum wage legislation was passed and then surveys several of the arguments that American economists gave in support of minimum wage laws.


1923 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 829
Author(s):  
E. M. B.

2011 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-210
Author(s):  
Edward James McKenna ◽  
Diane Catherine Zannoni

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-457
Author(s):  
Thomas Reed Powell

The decisions of the Supreme Court during the October terms of 1914, 1915, and 1916, indicate on the whole a more tolerant attitude towards the judgment of state legislatures on questions of the police power than one would be apt to infer from the criticisms called forth by the few cases in which laws were declared invalid. The cases on these questions gave rise to more diversity of opinion among the judges than did those arising under the commerce clause. In most of the important cases there was dissent, and several were decided by a vote of five to four. Chief Justice White, and Justices Van Devanter and McReynolds were opposed to the Oregon ten-hour law, the Washington compensation law and the Washington employment agency law; while Justices Holmes, Brandeis and Clarke were in favor of all three. On certain crucial questions these six justices seem quite likely to counteract each other, and leave the balance of power with Justices McKenna, Day and Pitney. Justices Pitney and Day were in favor of the ten-hour law and the compensation law and opposed to the employment agency law. Mr. Justice McKenna was in favor of the ten-hour law and the employment agency law and opposed to the compensation law. In the Oregon Minimum Wage Case, the court was divided four to four, Mr. Justice Brandeis not sitting.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 989
Author(s):  
Sandra Angelica ◽  
Andari Yurikosari

The demand for the minimum payment of the minimum wage has an expiration date, which is 2 years. The expiration date has been revoked with the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 100/PUU-X/2012. In the Decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number 195/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg juncto Decision of the Supreme Court Number 885K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017, the judge refused to grant the claim the minimum wage payment. Based on the verdict, what will be discussed in this paper are how the judges basis for filing a claim lacks payment of workers' minimum wages and how the legal consequences from the judge's consideration in filing a claim lack the minimum wage payment in the Industrial Relations Court Decision Number 195/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg juncto Decision of the Supreme Court Number 885K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017. The research method used is normative legal research. Based on the research that has been done, the judge mistakenly interpreted the enactment of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012 so the judge refused to grant the claim for the lack of minimum wage payments submitted by the plaintiffs. The judge's judgment stated that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012 did not apply retroactively so that the normative rights expiration provisions last took effect on September 18, 2013. Even though the claim should have been partially granted by the judge because the employer proved to pay workers' wages under the minimum wage provisions applicable, namely for payment of wages in 2013. In addition, the plaintiffs also submitted the claim after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document