scholarly journals Retrospectives: American Economists in the Progressive Era on the Minimum Wage

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E Prasch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Minimum Wage ◽  
Paper Briefly ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage Legislation

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.

scholarly journals The Supreme Court and Minimum Wage Legislation

1926 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray A. Brown ◽  
The National Consumers' League
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage Legislation

scholarly journals The Supreme Court and Minimum Wage Legislation

1926 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 246
Author(s):  
Arthur Garfield Hays ◽  
National Consumers' League
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage Legislation

scholarly journals The Supreme Court and the Minimum Wage

1923 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 852-856
Author(s):  
Edward Berman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage ◽  
The Supreme Court

Constitutional Law in 1936–37: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1936

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Political History ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Decisions

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.

“Ravished by Some Moron”: The Eugenic Origins of the Minnesota Psychopathic Personality Act of 1939

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Ladd-Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Social Control ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Psychopathic Personality ◽  
Sex Crimes ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
Administrative Framework

Abstract:Twenty U.S. states permit the indefinite detention of civilly committed sex offenders after the end of their prison sentences if their dangerousness is due to a “mental abnormality.” This article explores the origins of one such law by examining its predecessor, the Minnesota Psychopathic Personality Act of 1939. Passed in the wake of a panic over sex crimes and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1940, Minnesota’s psychopath statute extended a 1917 eugenics law providing for the compulsory civil commitment and institutionalization of “defectives” to persons alleged to have a psychopathic personality. Analyzing the 1917 and 1939 laws together shows how one state’s psychopath statute had less to do with psychiatric authority than with the legal and administrative framework established by Progressive-era eugenics. From the 1910s until today, dubious claims about the ability of science to identify potential criminals legitimized politically popular, but constitutionally questionable, forms of administrative and social control.

Protection in Ascent, 1908–23

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Woloch
Keyword(s):  
Women Workers ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wage ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Children's Hospital ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Children’S Hospital ◽  
The Law ◽  
Made In

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document