dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York
E244767
The dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York is Justice John Marshall Harlan’s influential critique of the Supreme Court’s use of substantive due process to strike down labor regulations, emphasizing judicial restraint and deference to state police powers.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2223942 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York Context triple: [John Marshall Harlan, notableWork, dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York]
-
A.
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.
-
B.
Olmstead v. United States dissent
The Olmstead v. United States dissent is Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s influential Supreme Court opinion arguing that wiretapping without a warrant violates constitutional privacy rights and foreshadowing modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
-
C.
dissenting opinion in Miranda v. Arizona
The dissenting opinion in Miranda v. Arizona is Justice Byron R. White’s critique of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that established mandatory police warnings to suspects, arguing it unduly restricted effective law enforcement.
-
D.
opinion in Ginzburg v. United States
The opinion in Ginzburg v. United States is a U.S. Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart that addressed the standards for determining obscenity in mailed publications.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York Target entity description: The dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York is Justice John Marshall Harlan’s influential critique of the Supreme Court’s use of substantive due process to strike down labor regulations, emphasizing judicial restraint and deference to state police powers.
-
A.
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.
-
B.
Olmstead v. United States dissent
The Olmstead v. United States dissent is Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s influential Supreme Court opinion arguing that wiretapping without a warrant violates constitutional privacy rights and foreshadowing modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
-
C.
dissenting opinion in Miranda v. Arizona
The dissenting opinion in Miranda v. Arizona is Justice Byron R. White’s critique of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that established mandatory police warnings to suspects, arguing it unduly restricted effective law enforcement.
-
D.
opinion in Ginzburg v. United States
The opinion in Ginzburg v. United States is a U.S. Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart that addressed the standards for determining obscenity in mailed publications.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court dissent
ⓘ
judicial opinion ⓘ |
| arguesThat |
courts should presume constitutionality of state economic regulations
ⓘ
the New York Bakeshop Act is a valid health law ⓘ
linked to:
New York Bakeshop Act
|
| associatedWithEra |
Lochner era of Supreme Court jurisprudence
ⓘ
linked to:
Lochner v. New York
|
| authoredBy |
John Marshall Harlan
ⓘ
Justice John Marshall Harlan ⓘ
linked to:
John Marshall Harlan
|
| caseCitation | 198 U.S. 45 (1905) ⓘ |
| caseContext | challenge to New York Bakeshop Act limiting bakers’ working hours ⓘ |
| caseName | Lochner v. New York ⓘ |
| citedFor | principle that courts should not act as a super-legislature in economic matters ⓘ |
| citedIn | constitutional law scholarship on the Lochner era ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
|
| contrastsWith | Justice Rufus Peckham’s majority opinion in Lochner v. New York ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| criticizesDoctrine |
aggressive substantive due process review
ⓘ
judicial invalidation of economic regulation based on laissez-faire principles ⓘ |
| date | 1905 ⓘ |
| focusesOn |
limits of judicial review
ⓘ
reasonableness of labor regulations ⓘ |
| historicalSignificance | influential critique of Lochner-era substantive due process ⓘ |
| holdsThat |
courts should not second-guess legislative judgments on social and economic policy if any reasonable basis exists
ⓘ
states may regulate working hours under their police powers to protect health and safety ⓘ |
| influenced | later jurisprudence favoring deference to economic regulation ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| languageCharacterization | emphasizes that the wisdom of legislation is for the legislature, not the courts ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
freedom of contract ⓘ state police power ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ |
| legalPhilosophy | more deferential approach to legislative judgments than the majority in Lochner ⓘ |
| opinionType | individual dissent ⓘ |
| opposes | majority opinion in Lochner v. New York ⓘ |
| partOf | Lochner v. New York ⓘ |
| positionOnOutcome | would have upheld the New York labor law ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | rational basis review (as a precursor concept) ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
labor regulation in the baking industry
ⓘ
limits of economic liberty under the Due Process Clause ⓘ |
| subsequentReception | often praised by modern constitutional scholars ⓘ |
| supportsDoctrine |
broad state police powers
ⓘ
deference to state legislatures ⓘ judicial restraint ⓘ |
| viewOnFreedomOfContract | freedom of contract is not absolute and may be reasonably regulated ⓘ |
| viewOnPolicePower | state police power includes protection of workers’ health in hazardous occupations ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York Description of subject: The dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York is Justice John Marshall Harlan’s influential critique of the Supreme Court’s use of substantive due process to strike down labor regulations, emphasizing judicial restraint and deference to state police powers.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.