Question

In Muller v. Oregon (1908) the Supreme Court considered the appeal of a laundry owner who had been charged with violating a state law regulating the maximum number of hours employees could work. He challenged the law on the ground that it violated his substantive due process rights. The Court unanimously upheld the law, which was surprising given the Court's tendency at that time to strike down such legislation. What accounts for the Court's reaching a decision in this case that seems so out of line with prevailing precedent (e.g., Lochner v. New York, 1905)?

Answer


*A. Varies