By: Eleni Christofides Between the 1890s and 1950s, the United States existed in a tumultuous world. From armed conflicts abroad, such as World Wars I and II, to movements at home such as Progressive Era activism and the impetus to mitigate the damage of the Great Depression, there was a need to keep up with a changing, fluctuating world. As a result, U.S. history during this time is marked by significant shifts in policies and public attitudes surrounding economic theories, and even what constitutes basic individual rights. The Supreme Court had an important role during this time to interpret laws and decide on their constitutionality, and many landmark Supreme Court cases can be found during these decades. However, it is important to note how those decisions and the reasoning behind them developed and evolved through those years. Though changing Justices can certainly make a difference in the Court's interpretation, there is also evidence of the ways in which outside societal forces tended to affect and influence the Court's decisions, particularly in the midst of stressful political periods. This evolution can be highlighted through a few key cases, which showcase the Court's increasingly restrictive treatment of economic liberty cases, as well as freedom of speech during wartime.
In the early 20th century, the accelerating Industrial Revolution led to a huge increase in capitalist enterprises; in response to this, the Court began to adhere to the idea of substantive due process. This meant that the Court could decide if a law was in violation of principles that were fundamental to democracy and overrule those that failed to pass that test. This often guided its decision-making process on economic liberties, and thus narrowed the scope of the legislature's police power to enforce regulations—the Court was not necessarily pro-business, but was committed to protecting economic liberties through due process. Lochner v. New York (1905) was one of the Court's most infamous rejections of police power, holding that a New York law had failed to establish a public health need for regulating the number of work hours for bakers, thus prioritizing individual economic liberty. Though the Court would create some exceptions to Lochner for classes of people that needed "special protection"—such as women in Muller v. Oregon in 1908—this would mark the Court's dedication to economic liberties at the expense of regulation. Thus the Court resisted much of the early Progressive Era pressures to protect workers and provide safety regulations, and this particular case would lead to a renewed push by Progressives to make protective laws. The Court would then uphold the Commerce Clause power of the Congress through the 1910s and through World War I, through cases such as Houston E. & W. v. United States in 1914, in which the Court expanded the power to some intrastate situations. This was in part because of a greater deference to presidential powers exerted by President Woodrow Wilson during a period of war. This time period was also marked by increased restrictions on liberties through freedom of speech, with cases like Schenck v. United States in 1919: the Court held here that there were appropriate restrictions on freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment when that speech could create a “clear and present” danger to the US during wartime. It's clear here how the Court's attitude was shaped by the government's war efforts during World War I and the fear of that effort being undermined; this emphasizes how outside influences can often shift the Court from one side of the due process versus societal protection spectrum to the other. But by the 1920s, after the Great War, U.S. history was marked by extreme consumerism and an emphasis on a laissez-faire economy, for which the Court would reassert its support. An important case for this was Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), when the Court struck down a D.C. minimum wage law for women, deeming that they were no longer in need of special protection under the law due to the passage of the 19th Amendment and thus falling on the side of economic liberty again. This economic liberty stance continued through the 1930s, at which point the Great Depression and World War II would again require some changes in the Court's treatment of regulation. The Court resisted much of FDR's New Deal program in its early years, treating it as an incredible government overreach into the economic lives of Americans, but soon began to uphold economic regulations as the people were in great favor of changes to mitigate the Great Depression: this includes Nebbia v. New York (1934), when the Court held that New York’s minimum price laws for milk did not violate due process, since they were reasonably designed to promote general welfare and as mitigation to the economic problems; it also includes West Coast Hotel Company v. Parish (1937), when the Court held that the State creating a minimum wage law for women did not violate due process, thus overturning Adkins and placing greater restrictions on what employers were allowed to pay their employees. These cases show another shift away from laissez-faire economics and toward police power, particularly in response to the needs and pressures of the culture rather than strictly constitutional precedence. This shift was maintained through the 1940s as the Court upheld acts and federal powers of the government to take control of economic matters during wartime, again expanding the Commerce Clause. In fact, in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), the Court created new jurisprudence that gave the presumption of constitutionality to economic regulation. There was also a continued restriction on individual liberties like freedom of speech or the basic right to live where one chose: WWII saw the horrible Korematsu decision that upheld the government's right to intern Japanese American citizens because their rights were outweighed by "emergency" and the fear of espionage. The period after World War II and during the Red Scare saw the Dennis v. US (1951) decision, when the Court continued its non-absolutist stance on freedom of speech and upheld the government's ability to restrict an act that is intended to overthrow the government. This attitude now continued past “true” war time into the Cold War, and was fueled by a fear of Communism. By examining this time period as a whole, it is clear that the Court saw a significant shift from its early days of emphasizing economic liberty through due process at the expense of regulation, to a time where war efforts and economic need pushed the Court to recognize a greater degree of governmental regulatory power at the expense of individual liberty—even extending beyond economic life to restrict speech and expression. Though the Court of course used the Constitution and precedence in its decisions through this period, the historical context of each decision is essential to understand it, and the external sway of the culture, especially fear of foreign enemies during World Wars I and II and the Cold War, no doubt influenced this period. This phenomenon did not end after the Cold War: the current national climate surrounding gun control has pitted safety regulations and policing power against liberties and economic interests in a similar way. The Courts will no doubt become involved in this debate; short of a Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court will become the final arbiter. It is likely that we will witness the influence of cultural context on the interpretation of law in real time. References: 1. Adkins v. Children's Hospital of D. C, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/261us525 2. Dennis v. United States, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/341us494 3. Korematsu v. United States, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/323us214 4. Lochner v. New York, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/198us45 5. Muller v. Oregon, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/208us412 6. Nebbia v. New York, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/291us502 7. Schenck v. United States, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 8. Shreveport Rate Cases, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/234us342 9. United States v. Carolene Products Company, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/304us144 10. Urofsky, Melvin and Paul Finkemlan. A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States, Volume II: From 1877 to the Present (Oxford University Press, 2011). 11. West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/300us379
0 Comments
By: Zack Valdman Ohio’s opioid crisis has reached epidemic-type levels, and the statistics are shocking. According to the Ohio Department of Health, in 2016, 4,050 deaths occurred due to fatal unintentional drug overdoses (with over half of those relating to opioids), averaging out to around 11 people per day. From 2000-2015, Ohio’s death rate due to unintentional overdosing increased by over 642%, and this increase stems largely from opioid overdoses. Ohio is the second worst state in the country in terms of unintentional overdose deaths, and this epidemic continues to plague both families affected and the state of Ohio itself. In fact, the Ohio Department of Health estimates that combining both the direct and indirect costs of unintentional fatal drug overdoses, Ohio lost $2 billion in medical and work loss costs in 2012 alone.
On Monday February 26th, 2018, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine sued four major distributors of pharmaceuticals due to their alleged role in this opioid epidemic. Listed in the lawsuit filed in a state court are McKesson Corp, Cardinal Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corp, and Miami-Luken Inc. According to DeWine’s statement: “They knew the amount of opioids allowed to flow into Ohio far exceeded what could be consumed for medically necessary purposes, but they did nothing to stop it…” The lawsuit pursues both compensatory damages and punitive damages arising from the increased costs to the Ohio healthcare, criminal justice, and social services systems. Similar cases have been met with adamant denials of wrongdoing from the companies named as defendants in the lawsuit; Cardinal Health labeled the suit “unfounded”, AmerisourceBergen reiterated its commitment to reducing opioid diversion, and McKesson explained that it has reported thousands of suspicious drug orders in previous years. Whether this lawsuit is political posturing or a sincere attempt to help curb the opioid crisis is up for debate. The duty of corporations to monitor and attempt to diminish the amount of opioids is not defined, and some believe that rather than suing the corporations that manufacture the drugs, suing the clinics that distribute them in inordinate amounts would be a better use of time and resources. Others believe that corporations need to take more responsibility for this issue, and the lawsuits are well warranted. Regardless of where one falls on the issue, the opioid crisis in Ohio must be addressed one way or another. Whether the ultimate answer is lawsuits, legislation, innovation, awareness, or a combination of these factors remains to be seen. Sources Cited: https://www.odh.ohio.gov/health/vipp/drug/dpoison.aspx https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/12/21/ohios-overdose-deaths-soar-again-state-ranks-2nd-worst-nation/973220001/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-opioids-litigation/ohio-accuses-drug-distributors-of-helping-fuel-opioid-epidemic-idUSKCN1GA2MG https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/breaking-news-news/ohio-sues-drug-distributors-in-battle-to-curb-opioid-epidemic http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/ohio-hosts-innovation-competition-combat-opioid-crisis |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |