The Supreme Court in the Progressive Era

Introduction 

The Progressive Era, which took place between the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, was a pivotal event in the history of the United States. The time frame being referred to was characterized by major social, economic, and political disturbances as the U.S. dealt with the vast reconstruction of society due to technological progress, urbanization, and industrialization. In the middle of such deep-rooted societal changes, the tide of reform movements rose, driven by the growing discontent with the status quo, which had been poorly combating the disparities and other social injustices. Progressivists of the Era of Progress were zealous in their striving for change and coped with problems such as racial discrimination, labor exploitation, political corruption, and women’s suffrage. This paper investigates the progressiveness of the period by analyzing the general trends in employment and industrial development as reflected in significant Supreme Court cases that shaped the sphere of labor relations and corporate influence. Even though the progressives were the reformists, the contamination of Supreme Court decisions as in Adair v. United States, Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), Lochner v. New York (1905), and the Erdman Act helped the corporate interests that overweighed the workers’ rights, thereby obstructing the achievement of an agenda that was genuinely progressive.

Adair v. United States.

In the context of federal mastery of employers’ jurisdiction over employment conditions, e.g., the right to hire or discharge workers over union membership was the issue in the Adair v. United States case. 1908 was the turning point of the contest between progressives and workers in the right of work age. In its verdict, the Court declared that the Federal government lacks the power to tackle those issues; otherwise, the companies’ right to free contact with their employees will be violated (Oyez). This groundbreaking verdict established labor unions’ difficulties in organizing and working collectively to obtain better pay and working conditions. The ruling protected employers from dictating how they manage their workforce, which had a ripple effect (Oyez). This diminished the core principles of collective action and solidarity that were key to the labor movement’s social and economic equality quest.

In Adair v. United States, the Court demonstrated the general philosophy prevailing in the Progressive Era, during which corporate interests were given primacy over labor rights through the judicial interpretation of the constitutional principles (Oyez). This judicial system already showed a preference for the employer’s independence in labor relations, which was the main socio-economic condition of that time. During the Industrial Revolution, the economic elites greatly influenced the government and corporate law, reshaping the policy toward their best interests (Oyez). The judges’ respect for corporate privileges sustained a system of exploitation and inequality, reducing the workers’ ability to achieve work guarantees (Oyez). The Courts’s tilt towards employers’ ability to choose work conditions exacerbated power imbalances in capitalist industrialism, hence, retarding labor reforms geared towards redressing the inequalities.

Subsequently, the Adair versus the United States case in the Court also revealed how difficult progressive reformers faced social and economic equity despite their efforts. The opposition to the labor and social reforms by the judiciary’s unperturbed protection of corporate interests made the influential effort and the lobbying of labor organizers and social reformers in vain, and they were belligerent. Thus, it became difficult to make any meaningful changes.

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

1918 witnessed a significant event, the fight against child labor in the Progressive Era; the case Hammer v. Dagenhart was a pivotal moment in the battle. The case was the instance by which the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was established because it was valid in the point that it declared the illegalization of child labor during inter-state trade (Ballotpedia). It was a watershed moment in the fight against rampant child labor across the country with the enactment of the Act in 1916, which made child shipment and sale of products made by minors illegal (Ballotpedia). The enactment of this piece of legislation epitomized the emerging public concern about the negative impacts of child labor on domestic industry and national welfare, as reformers aimed at ensuring the protection of the livelihood and quality of life of vulnerable young workers.

The Supreme Court, in its Hoover v. Dagenhart case, grossly diminished the prospe