Title: 10-01pp.353
1. After 1937 most Supreme Court observers believed that the doctrine of economic substantive
due process was dead, and for many years this conclusion was accurate. In more recent years,
however, economic substantive due process has experienced renewed importance, as exemplified
by the Court’s application of the doctrine to _______.
2. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873; cases challenging Louisiana’s creation of a monopoly
slaughterhouse company), the Supreme Court _______.
3. In Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955) the Supreme Court heard a substantive due process
challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that an opticians could grind lenses and fit eyeglasses
only when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The law was
challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The Supreme Court _______.
4. In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) a hotel company challenged a state law setting
mandatory minimum wage levels. The company seemingly stood on firm ground, because in
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) the Supreme Court set a precedent that such laws violate
constitutional due process guarantees. In West Coast Hotel the Supreme Court _______.
5. In substantive due process cases, the “Four Horsemen” (Justices McReynolds, Butler,
Sutherland, and Van Devanter) _______.
6. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the concept of substantive due process was has been
applied to _______.
7. Explain what is meant by the term “substantive due process.”
8. To what does the term “Brandeis Brief” refer?
9. In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) the Supreme Court struck down a congressional
10. 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)?
11. In Munn v. Illinois (1877) the Supreme Court upheld state regulation of the grain elevator
industry against a challenge that the law violated the due process of law guarantees. In its ruling
the Court said that due process does not bar the government from regulating certain kinds of
businesses. What name or descriptive title did the Court give to the category of businesses that
could be regulated?
12. What are three reasons it is important to understand the doctrine of substantive due process?
13. Why were the Slaughterhouse Cases noteworthy when the Court decided them?
14. Explain why Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) may have been the turning point for the use of
substantive due process to protect people’s liberty against government encroachment.
15. How did the Court distinguish Lochner from Holden? Do you find the analysis logical and
convincing? Why or why not?
16. How did the Court justify moving away from justifications based on substantive due process
in West Coast Hotel?
17. Using examples from the cases you have read, as well as from the Constitution, explain the
differences between procedural due process and substantive due process. Which type of due
process do you think the framers meant to include in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Why?
18. Trace the history of substantive due process from its origins, through the Lochner era, and to
the present day. What made the Court alter its view of the degree to which substantive due
process protected the rights of individuals and businesses to be free from government
encroachment? Use explicit references to cases you have read to support your answer.
19. The case of Terri Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, riveted the nation during
the first half of 2005. The case centered on the decision of Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, to
remove her feeding tube and her parents’ fight to keep her alive. One side of the argument
suggests that Terri possessed a fundamental right to die, while the other suggests she had a
fundamental right to be given food and water. Both arguments find support in the concept of
substantive due process. The former points to the concept that there is a fundamental right to
privacy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, while the latter argues that the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that citizens will not be denied life without due process of
law. Assume that a case similar to the Schiavo case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and that you
are a justice. How will you rule if both parties argue that their side is supported by the concept of
substantive due process? Does one side hold more legal weight than the other? Why or why not?
If you find that substantive due process is not implicated in this case, how will you rule? Why?