Key Takeaways

1. Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) invalidated a federal minimum wage law for women, holding that it violated the liberty of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
2. The decision was a hallmark of the "Lochner era," during which the Supreme Court routinely struck down economic regulations as unconstitutional infringements on individual economic liberty.
3. Adkins was later overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), signaling a shift toward greater acceptance of government regulation of labor and economic matters.

Introduction

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that shaped American constitutional law and labor policy in the early twentieth century. Decided on April 9, 1923, the case addressed whether Congress could set minimum wages for women and children in Washington, D.C. The ruling, which found such regulation unconstitutional, is emblematic of the Lochner era—a period when the Court prioritized economic liberties and the so-called “freedom of contract” over government intervention in the marketplace.

This guide provides a comprehensive analysis of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, exploring its legal background, arguments, decision, and enduring impact on American law. For attorneys and legal researchers, understanding Adkins is essential for grasping the development of constitutional protections for economic rights and the shifting boundaries of governmental power.

Historical Context and Background

The Progressive Era and Labor Reform

The early 1900s in the United States were marked by rapid industrialization and urbanization. Labor conditions, especially for women and children, were often harsh—characterized by long hours, low pay, and unsafe workplaces. In response, reformers and legislators pushed for laws to improve working conditions and establish minimum standards for wages and hours.

The Progressive Era (roughly 1890–1920) saw a wave of social and economic reforms, including efforts to protect vulnerable workers. Minimum wage laws were part of this movement, aimed particularly at women, who were believed to be especially susceptible to exploitation due to their weaker bargaining position in the labor market.

The 1918 Minimum Wage Law for Women and Children

In 1918, Congress passed a law establishing a Minimum Wage Board for the District of Columbia. The Board was empowered to set minimum wages for women and children employed within the district. The law was intended to ensure that wages would be sufficient to maintain workers’ health and well-being.

However, employers challenged the law, arguing that it interfered with their right to negotiate wages freely with their employees—a right they characterized as a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution.

The Parties and the Dispute

Children’s Hospital of the District of Columbia, a major employer of women, and Jesse C. Adkins, a member of the Minimum Wage Board, became the central parties in the litigation. The hospital, joined by other employers and employees, argued that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by infringing upon the liberty of contract.

The Legal Arguments

The Liberty of Contract

The concept of liberty of contract emerged from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court had previously held, notably in Lochner v. New York (1905), that these clauses protected not only procedural rights but also certain substantive rights, including the right to freely enter into contracts.

Opponents of minimum wage laws argued that such regulations unreasonably restricted the freedom of employers and employees to determine the terms of employment. They contended that the government’s role should be limited to preventing coercion or fraud, not dictating the economic terms of private agreements.

The Police Power and Public Welfare

Proponents of the minimum wage law argued that the government’s police power—its authority to regulate for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public—justified intervention in the labor market. They maintained that substandard wages threatened public health and social stability, and that women, in particular, merited protection due to their economic vulnerability.

The legal debate thus centered on the tension between individual economic liberty and the state’s power to promote the public good.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Majority Opinion

On April 9, 1923, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (Oyez summary). In a 5–3 vote, the Court struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional.

Justice George Sutherland, writing for the majority, reasoned that the law violated the liberty of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The majority held that while the government could regulate working conditions to protect health and safety—such as limiting working hours or prohibiting child labor—setting minimum wages for adults was a different matter. The Court distinguished wage regulation from hour regulation, arguing that wages were a matter for private negotiation unless there was a direct threat to public welfare.

Sutherland wrote:

“To the extent that women have become emancipated, they stand, so far as contracts of employment are concerned, upon a plane of equality with men. Legislation which limits the right of adult women to contract with respect to their employment, as such, cannot be sustained on the ground of protection.”

The majority viewed the law as an arbitrary interference with the freedom of contract, not justified by any pressing public need.

The Dissenting Opinions

Three justices dissented, most notably Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The dissenters argued that the government had a legitimate interest in protecting women from exploitation and that the minimum wage law was a reasonable exercise of the police power.

Holmes, in particular, criticized the majority’s rigid adherence to the liberty of contract, suggesting that the Constitution did not prevent reasonable regulation of economic relationships:

“The word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law.”

Legal and Social Impact

The Lochner Era and Its Legacy

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is often cited as a classic example of the Lochner era (circa 1897–1937), a period during which the Supreme Court frequently struck down economic regulations as unconstitutional infringements on liberty of contract. This era was marked by skepticism of government intervention in the economy and a strong judicial commitment to protecting individual economic rights.

The Adkins decision reinforced this judicial philosophy, making it difficult for legislatures to enact laws designed to improve labor conditions, especially for women and children.

Implications for Women’s Rights

The Adkins case was particularly significant for the women’s rights movement. While the minimum wage law was intended to protect women from exploitation, the Court’s decision effectively removed a key legal tool for addressing gender-based wage disparities.

Some feminists at the time supported the decision, arguing that special protections for women reinforced gender stereotypes and undermined the push for equal treatment. Others saw the ruling as a setback for economic justice and workplace equality.

Economic and Political Consequences

The invalidation of minimum wage laws in Adkins and similar cases contributed to continued economic hardship for many workers, especially during the Great Depression. As unemployment and poverty soared, public support for government intervention in the economy grew, ultimately leading to a shift in constitutional doctrine.

The Overruling: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

The Adkins decision stood as precedent for over a decade but was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) (Justia summary). In Parrish, the Court upheld a Washington state minimum wage law for women, reasoning that the liberty of contract was not absolute and that the government could regulate wages to protect workers and promote the general welfare.

This landmark reversal marked the end of the Lochner era and signaled a new willingness by the Court to uphold economic regulation. The decision paved the way for the New Deal and a host of labor protections, including the federal minimum wage established by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Broader Constitutional Themes

Substantive Due Process

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a leading case in the doctrine of substantive due process, which holds that certain rights—such as the liberty of contract—are so fundamental that the government cannot infringe upon them, even with proper procedures. While substantive due process remains a part of constitutional law, its application to economic rights has been sharply limited since the 1930s.

Today, substantive due process is more commonly associated with personal rights, such as privacy and family autonomy, rather than economic liberties.

The Evolution of Economic Regulation

The shift from Adkins to Parrish reflects a broader transformation in American constitutional law. In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court was wary of government intervention in the economy. By the late 1930s, however, the Court recognized the need for regulation to address social and economic challenges.

This evolution underscores the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the influence of changing social, economic, and political conditions on judicial decision-making.

Key Passages and Judicial Reasoning

Majority Reasoning

The majority in Adkins emphasized that:

• The freedom of contract is a fundamental right protected by the Fifth Amendment.
• Minimum wage laws for women, unlike maximum hour laws, constitute a direct interference with this right.
• The emancipation of women, including the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote, lessened the need for special legal protections.

Dissenting Reasoning

The dissenters argued that:

• The police power of the government includes the authority to regulate wages to protect vulnerable workers.
• The liberty of contract is not absolute and must be balanced against the needs of society.
• The Constitution does not prevent reasonable regulation aimed at promoting health, safety, and welfare.

Analysis and Critique

The Limits of Liberty of Contract

Legal scholars have extensively debated the merits of the Adkins decision. Critics argue that the Court’s rigid protection of liberty of contract ignored the realities of unequal bargaining power and the social costs of poverty wages. By striking down minimum wage laws, the Court prioritized formal legal equality over substantive economic justice.

Supporters of the decision, on the other hand, contend that it protected individual autonomy and limited government overreach.

The Role of the Judiciary

Adkins raises enduring questions about the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing economic legislation. Should courts defer to the judgment of legislatures on matters of public policy, or should they protect individual rights against majoritarian excesses? The eventual overruling of Adkins suggests a consensus that courts should show greater deference to economic regulation, especially when aimed at protecting vulnerable populations.

Modern Relevance

Minimum Wage Laws Today

Today, minimum wage laws are a cornerstone of American labor policy, widely accepted as a legitimate exercise of the government’s power to regulate the economy. The reasoning of Adkins is largely confined to history, but debates about the appropriate balance between government regulation and individual freedom persist.

Gender and Economic Justice

The Adkins case remains relevant to discussions about gender equality and economic justice. While special legal protections for women are less common today, issues of wage disparity and workplace discrimination continue to be central concerns for policymakers and advocates.

Further Reading and Official Sources

For those seeking a deeper understanding of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the following official sources provide comprehensive information:

• Oyez: Adkins v. Children's Hospital
• Justia: Adkins v. Children's Hospital
• Library of Congress: Full Text PDF
• Britannica: Adkins v. Children's Hospital
• Wikipedia: Adkins v. Children's Hospital

These resources offer detailed case summaries, judicial opinions, and historical analyses.

Conclusion

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital occupies a critical place in the history of American constitutional law. The decision’s emphasis on liberty of contract and skepticism of government regulation reflected the values of its era but proved unsustainable in the face of economic crisis and changing social attitudes. Its eventual reversal marked a turning point in the relationship between the courts, the government, and the economy.

For attorneys, legal researchers, and students, Adkins remains a powerful illustration of the evolving nature of constitutional rights and the enduring debate over the proper scope of government intervention in economic life.

Disclaimer: This overview is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal issues discussed are complex and subject to interpretation. For specific legal questions or advice, consult a qualified attorney or conduct further research using official sources.