Bunting v. Oregon facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Bunting v. Oregon |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 18, 1916 Reargued January 19, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 |
|
| Full case name | Franklin O. Bunting, Plaintiff in Error v. The State of Oregon |
| Citations | 243 U.S. 426 (more)
37 S. Ct. 435; 61 L. Ed. 830; 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2008
|
| Prior history | 71 Or. 259 (1914) |
| Holding | |
| The court affirmed the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court, which upheld the state law, for a ten-hour work day, as constitutional. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | McKenna, joined by Holmes, Day, Pitney, Clarke |
| Dissent | White |
| Dissent | Van Devanter |
| Dissent | McReynolds |
| Brandeis took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Bunting v. Oregon, a case from 1917, was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided that a state law setting a ten-hour workday for both men and women was fair and constitutional. This ruling helped protect workers' rights across the country.
This case was a big step for labor laws in the United States. It showed that states could make rules to keep workers safe and healthy. Future Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter helped represent the state of Oregon in this case.
Contents
Understanding Bunting v. Oregon
This section explains the main ideas behind the Bunting v. Oregon Supreme Court case. It covers why the case happened and what important questions it tried to answer.
Why This Case Was Important
In 1913, the state of Oregon passed a new law. This law said that most workers, both men and women, could only work ten hours a day. If they worked more than ten hours, up to three extra hours, their employers had to pay them more. This extra pay was called "time-and-a-half."
Oregon believed this law was part of its "police powers." These powers allow a state to make laws that protect the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens. The state argued that long work hours could harm people's health.
The Main Question for the Court
Franklin O. Bunting did not follow Oregon's new overtime rules. He argued that the state law was unfair. He felt it stopped people from making their own work agreements.
The big question for the Supreme Court was this: Can a state law limit how many hours people work? Or does it unfairly interfere with a person's right to make a contract with their employer? This right is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says that states cannot take away certain freedoms from people without good reason.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court looked at all the arguments. They decided that Oregon's law was indeed constitutional. This meant the state had the right to set limits on working hours.
Why the Court Ruled for Oregon
The Court agreed that Oregon was using its "police powers" correctly. They said the state could make rules to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its workers. Justice McKenna, who wrote the main opinion, explained the reasons.
Bunting had argued that the law didn't really help workers' health. But the Court disagreed. They said that limiting work hours did help keep employees healthy. The Court also found that the law did not give some businesses an unfair advantage. It simply regulated how long people worked, not how much they earned per hour. Workers and employers could still agree on wages that worked for both of them.
This decision was a major victory for workers' rights. It helped pave the way for more laws that protect employees in the workplace.
