Turn of the Century

Lochner Era w. Craig Estlinbaum

February 25, 2021
Turn of the Century
Lochner Era w. Craig Estlinbaum
Chapters
Turn of the Century
Lochner Era w. Craig Estlinbaum
Feb 25, 2021

If you’re a regular news consumer, Supreme Court decisions can often feel very technical. We know these cases are important, but we normally need an “explainer” to understand the jargon.

Technical cases like these became critical at the end of the 19th century, when the court ruled on Labor and Contract Law. The precedents set in this era affected average workers across America, and would come to define Union organizing and Progressivism for years to come. 

In our second episode on the Supreme Court, Legal Expert Craig Estlinbaum rejoins the show to explain the ‘Lochner Era’ and unpack high-stakes contact law. Get ready for a Supreme Roller Coaster!

Craig Estlinbaum was judge of the 130th District Court of Texas from 2001 through December 2020 and has been adjunct professor of law at South Texas College of Law since 2004. He regularly speaks before bar associations and law school programs and his work has been published in law journals at St. Mary's Law School, at South Texas College of Law and elsewhere. He also co-hosts the podcast Hooks & Runs, a podcast about baseball, music and culture

Produced by Joseph Hawthorne

Dill Pickles Rag by Charles L Johnson
The Entertainer by Scott Joplin

Show Notes Transcript

If you’re a regular news consumer, Supreme Court decisions can often feel very technical. We know these cases are important, but we normally need an “explainer” to understand the jargon.

Technical cases like these became critical at the end of the 19th century, when the court ruled on Labor and Contract Law. The precedents set in this era affected average workers across America, and would come to define Union organizing and Progressivism for years to come. 

In our second episode on the Supreme Court, Legal Expert Craig Estlinbaum rejoins the show to explain the ‘Lochner Era’ and unpack high-stakes contact law. Get ready for a Supreme Roller Coaster!

Craig Estlinbaum was judge of the 130th District Court of Texas from 2001 through December 2020 and has been adjunct professor of law at South Texas College of Law since 2004. He regularly speaks before bar associations and law school programs and his work has been published in law journals at St. Mary's Law School, at South Texas College of Law and elsewhere. He also co-hosts the podcast Hooks & Runs, a podcast about baseball, music and culture

Produced by Joseph Hawthorne

Dill Pickles Rag by Charles L Johnson
The Entertainer by Scott Joplin

Joseph Hawthorne:

If you're a regular news consumer, Supreme Court decisions can often feel technical. We know these cases are important. But if you're like me, I normally need an explainer to help understand the jargon. Technical cases like these became critical at the end of the 19th century, when the court ruled on labor and contract law. The precedents set in this era affected average workers across America, and it would come to define union organizing progressivism years to come. The laws to help people improve their lives to help defend workers. Welcome back to turn of the century. In our second episode on the Supreme Court, legal expert, Craig esto. Bomb rejoins the show to explain the Lochner era and unpack high stakes contract law. Get ready for a supreme a roller coaster ride. Hello, everyone. I'm glad you're back with us today for another conversation with former Texas District Judge law professor and podcaster Craig esslyn. Bomb. Today we're talking about the Supreme Court again wishes Like I said before, always irrelevant, always will be important until we change our Constitution. But today we're talking about the Lochner era. So still from the turn of the century, but very different, in many ways, still has to do with business very different from the civil rights cases and the road to plessy versus ferguson before. So Craig, welcome back.

Craig Estlinbaum:

Thank you for having me. Happy to be here.

Joseph Hawthorne:

I'm really excited to talk with you again, about these cases. Because, you know, if you look at textbook, if you especially if you look at Supreme Court law textbook, this term this era, I think will come up the Lochner era. But it is very technical. It's not quite as well known as Plessy versus Ferguson. So in a broad sense, what are we talking about today?

Craig Estlinbaum:

Well, the Lochner era is a period between 1897 in 1937. And the Reader's Digest version, I guess, of the Lochner would be it's a period when the Supreme Court was somewhat regularly striking down economic regulations adopted by states based upon the court's own opinions about how the state should implement its policies or regulate matters in its borders. So it's a period of time of what would be, in today's terms be called judicial activism, where state law was being stripped down on a regular basis, because the court just didn't like the law.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And I'm glad you mentioned that because I was going to go going through my own notes, I was going to bring that up. That's kind of judicial activism or legislating from the bench is almost a slur, I think, you know, for for judges or supreme court justices. So there's a few key cases in the Lochner era. What's the first one that we should keep in mind? Well, the

Craig Estlinbaum:

case that kind of kicked off or started the locker error is actually a case called Algar versus Louisiana, it was decided in 1897. But to give you some kind of background as to where this is leading, in the period of time between, say, the end of the Civil War, up until 1897, there was a lot of change in the United States, your podcast, is dealing with this. Increasingly, people were moving into cities, I think the Ellis Island experiment with broader immigration, to meet the labor demands of a growing nation was happening. And so progressives of that era became very concerned about health, safety, morals, and the well being of the public. And so they would create these laws that were designed to protect the health and safety of the public sanitation laws. You can go down the line wage laws, our laws, wage, work, condition laws, all designed to create a healthier and safer environment for for workers. You had the beginnings of the union movement, maybe in the 1880s and 1890s. And so all of these things were coming into a head and so in 1897, the case Algar case, plus you just had some general economic regulation, and this is kind of one of those cases, the Louisiana law at issue in Algar.

Joseph Hawthorne:

So I'm gonna jump in real quick. So I'm not sure if you mentioned this term just before, but this feels like the beginning of kind of progressivism of people trying to use the government to create progress to defend a workers you know, to adapt moral and practical concerns in an industrial age. So then, what's our first practical case we're talking about? I think we, we go to Louisiana a lot. So we're going down to the bayou.

Unknown:

We go back to

Craig Estlinbaum:

Louisiana. This is a case in Louisiana that made it illegal for Louisiana's to enter into certain insurance contracts by mail with companies that were not in Louisiana. And so this is really not a health and safety regulation, as much as it is just an Economic Regulation to general Economic Regulation in the state of Louisiana. So Louisiana prosecuted a company called our God Algar and company for making such a contract with a New York firm. So this case, then goes to I think they were fined case goes to United States Supreme Court. And the court held nine to zero, that the contract was made in New York, where the insurance company was and the contract was lawful in New York. So therefore, it's a lawful contract. And it further held that the 14th amendment guaranteed the right to enter into lawful contracts. So this is not something that's written in the 14th amendment per se. But they read it into the 14th amendment that, that there's a right to freedom of contract. And so this then becomes now the first decision that where the United States Supreme Court strikes down a state law as unconstitutional for depriving a person of the right to enter into a lawful contract.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And we're going back to the 14th amendment listeners that joined our our legal conversation about the Supreme Court last time will recognize this amendment. It's longer than the other reconstruction amendments, and it has, you know, all sorts of, I guess, nooks and crannies. But is there just something about the 14th amendment that, I guess attracted people to playing with it to, you know, dissecting it at the turn of the century?

Craig Estlinbaum:

Well, before the reconstruction amendments in the pre Civil War, the Bill of Rights includes in the fifth amendment and the equal protection clause and a due process clause, but those are clauses in that period of time before the Civil War, that only apply to action by the United States government. And those days, the United States government did not get very much entangled into state issues. So the states had their own constitutions, and those state constitutions may have also included similar guarantees. And any challenge under due process, protection, pre civil war would have come under those state constitutional provisions in state courts, not federal courts. So after the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment, section one includes a provision that guarantees due process of law, equal protection of the law and freedom of infringement of privileges and immunities, which was, as we learned last time, a dead letter now as against state action. So now, when the state impairs a due process, right, or protection of the law, it becomes a federal question that can go to the United States Supreme Court. So that's that's how this case gets to the Supreme Court, whereas before the Civil for the 14th amendment, it's just going to be a state action case, and it only goes to the state court.

Joseph Hawthorne:

Interesting. So, you know, it does seem like as the country is growing bigger as its industrializing after the Civil War, after reconstruction, there is this movement towards a federal government towards federal law or Constitution, which I guess, you know, there's almost this this magnetism about when countries grow bigger the federal government seems to get the national government seems to get more involved. So then, what is the practical results of this first case, you know, what does this mean for people outside of Louisiana?

Craig Estlinbaum:

What this means for people outside of Louisiana is that their attempts

Unknown:

to

Craig Estlinbaum:

pass local progressive legislation for the health and safety of its people or for the morals of its people, or for overall just general quality of life of its people, now have to be tested against this new federal right to contract. The majority opinion in Algar establishing the liberty of contract document says that the principle of freedom of contract is the rule and states have to justify any regulation against this freedom. So employers for example, would now use the Algar decision to contest work our limitations, minimum wage laws union related questions, often successfully, not always, but often successfully. The court said that the right to follow any of the common occupations of life isn't an inalienable, inalienable right. And that it's formulated under, you know, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness from the, from the Declaration of Independence. Ironically, that comes from the slaughterhouse cases, the dissents and the slaughterhouse cases. So, here, they're adopting that language to ensure for employers, particularly guard against regulation on the local level,

Joseph Hawthorne:

it does seem like we're going to get more into this, but it does seem, you know, kind of perverse or disappointing, maybe that these similar cases, these cases about the 14th amendment are leading to the demise of civil rights legislation, but they are, in essence, helping business helping big business. Is that something that people recognize at the time, you know, I, again, this

Craig Estlinbaum:

is more for historians than someone who just studies the cases. But I would suspect that there was a lot of tension, like, for example, in, in all of these legislation, legislators that are passing these various progressive legislation on the state level or the local level, minimum wage, I would suspect that there's a lot of opposition to them, because businesses and capital interests tend to be a fairly concentrated and fairly well organized. So I can't imagine, I mean, they were suing to get them overthrown. So I'm sure that they were fighting them in the halls, but there was, but but there were also during these periods of time, very strong social groups and religious groups that were working to create better living conditions. And so you had not much of the way of a safety net, this is before any of the New Deal, obviously, safety net started to be created. So people who fell through the cracks fell pretty hard. And were very visible, you know, can be anything from orphan orphans, begging in the street, to sanitation issues to the whole bed. And people wanted better quality of life and a lot of these industrialized areas.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And so, you know, I think, you know, even even if we, we can't know everything, or we have to do a lot of research to look into people's motivations versus just, you know, the legal case or the facts of the case. We can still see that by the very fact of of these laws, or these cases existence, those contradictions, those fights between what different moral groups want with different business groups want civil rights groups, and so on. So this decision, unanimous decision, as opposed to the very close slaughterhouse decision helps lead in to what we consider a call the Lochner era. So how does it lead to the Lochner area? What is the Lochner case?

Craig Estlinbaum:

Okay. longnor. Yeah, Lochner versus New York is a decision from 1905. So seven years later, one thing that's kind of on your point that I want to add is, I don't think that at any point, this became settled in the public's mind. Because if you follow the Lochner era, all the way to its end in 1937, there were a ton of cases that that were brought to the Supreme Court, and were fought all up and down the lower courts over this issue of liberty of contract and the police power of the states and local officials to regulate for the health and safety. The, the local governments did not always lose, but they lost a lot. And so it became a it was a very tough fight. But the local governments never stopped trying to make things better for the people that they represented. And so you had a steady stream of these Lochner era cases coming up to the Supreme Court, sometimes the local government one and some more often, I think, I don't know the exact numbers. But more often, local governments last but they never quits. And they never quit trying to figure out ways to make things better for the people. So I would say, for that reason, I would say that this was a very hotly contested area of law during this 30 year period.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And I also, you know, I do want to point out as well, because I think this is often I say, misunderstood about the north and the south is that yes, we see horrendous Jim Crow and segregation in the south, which we talked about in the previous episodes. That's my plug for that. past episode, but, you know, the first case we're talking we just talked about was in Louisiana, about Louisiana, kind of progressive activist legislation. The case we're talking about here is in New York. So there are these pushes and pulls throughout the country as well. You know, despite the conversation we just had about Jim Crow segregation in separate but equal in the south. So with that transition, what is Lochner versus New York, in 1895,

Craig Estlinbaum:

the New York legislature passed what's called the bake shop act of 1895. And this is an act that includes some sanitation provisions for bakeries in the state of New York, and also limits the working hours for people that work in bakeries to six days a week, and I believe it was 10 hours a day. Yeah, 60 Hour Workweek and also included some other provisions. Proponents of the bake shop Act, which was passed unanimously in the New York legislature argued that the law was necessary to promote citizenship, improve family life, protect health and safety and provide fairness to workers who were in no position to bargain for more equitable conditions.

Joseph Hawthorne:

Opponents and I just want to add to that, if you missed it, that's a humane 60 Hour Workweek six days a week as well. Yeah.

Craig Estlinbaum:

Yeah, right, Sundays off. And then. So opponents, though, cited social Darwinism, laissez faire economics and opposition to unwarranted what they say was a more of the government intrusion into the marketplace. So that's the battle a guy by the name of john Lochner was a small Baker and a lot of these bake shops were single shops, maybe three, four employees. But john Lochner was a small Baker in Utica, New York, and he was convicted twice of violating the bakeshop Act of 1895 and fined $25 the first time and fined $50 a second time, and what he was doing was having his employees work more than 60 hours. So essentially, they were entering an agreement where they would work maybe 12 hours a day, or maybe they work on Sundays, that you would pay them for that. So he filed a lawsuit or he defended his case on the grounds that the bakeshop Act of 1895 violated his freedom of contract, protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. And previous to this, there had been some decisions that had upheld work our restrictions and industries like mining and smelting, that were generally regarded or widely regarded as unhealthy. Those had been upheld. This case comes to the Supreme Court, and it's decided against New York against the act by a five to four decision. And the majority writes that the law, the bake shop act law necessarily interfered unlawfully with the right of contract between the employer and the employee, and justice Peck home running that decision was really concerned about the fact that if you just let legislators say, Well, I'm defending this on the basis of the police power, the police power doesn't have any inherent limitations. And so the Justice back home saw the liberty of contract as a limitation on the police power. He distinguished the previous cases involving mining companies and smelting on the grounds that those were inherently unsafe and inherently risky to the health of the employees. But he took judicial notice of the fact that baked shops are not unhealthy. And so essentially, he over overruled the findings of the New York legislature. And that's where you get into this criticism of judicial activism.

Joseph Hawthorne:

So then I'm curious, you know, how would you describe this case? Because it does seem a little bit. I mean, I guess there is a difference between baking and like heavy manufacturing, but it also seems much more rooted in justice justices, personal opinions, then, you know, like a strict standard of law.

Craig Estlinbaum:

Well, you say that as though you read justice Holmes dissent, because that was what he said, Justice Holmes, there were four dissenting judges and justice Holmes wrote one that was very influential and is noted probably the most noted the other was written by Justice john Marshall Harlan, who was known And during his time on the court as a great dissenter, he was a dissenting judge in some of the civil rights cases that went against the civil rights of African Americans. But justice Holmes argued that the test in this type of case ought to be the rational person test, meaning would a rational person believe that the act is something other than a reasonable attempt to regulate for the health and safety of the public in the area that affected by the legislation. And he criticized the majority's approach, saying that, that giving the police power, a limited scope and the liberty of contract a broad scope essentially allows judges to, to substitute their own opinions about what ought to be the law from that of the legislators who are in the position of fact finding and making conclusions as to what legislation ought to be unnecessary.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And so, you know, the, ultimately, the great dissenters are dissenters and they lose. So what does this mean for you know, the legislation going forward? What does this mean for states, I guess, moral individual actors trying to craft legislation to protect our our wonderful bakers from only working 60 hours a week? And where does this end because I think that things have changed now,

Craig Estlinbaum:

things have changed quite a bit. In 1910. President Roosevelt that Theodore Roosevelt was very critical of the court. But then they had already followed up Lochner with another decision along the same lines, saying that the court was subject substituting their own judgments regarding what the law to be for that of legislators that are actually in a position to do fact finding hold hearings and so forth, and craft laws to meet the needs of the public. And so this was a critical line of cases from the very beginning after Lochner, starting with Roosevelt. And essentially, I think it's important to point out that there is a difference between the Supreme Court and lower courts, trial courts, and there's also a difference between courts generally and legislators. legislators have committees, the committees hold hearings, they can bring in experts, they can do fact finding. legislators have broad powers to make findings based upon the hearings that they have and the information they receive. And then craft legislation designed to address the issues that are raised by the findings that they've made. trial courts do something similar in the sense that trial courts are fact finders. So a trial court has a trial where witnesses testify. And sometimes the juries make the decisions about what the facts are. And sometimes judges make decisions about the facts are and in either case, the judge ultimately makes a decision about how the facts are applied to the law to to yield a result, the Supreme Court of the United States and most appellate courts, I think, virtually all appellate courts are not courts of where fact finding occurs. So unless it's a rare case, where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and there aren't very many of those are lenient, those the Supreme Court doesn't do fact finding. So when the Supreme Court contests the findings of the legislature, the first question that you ask is, what's the basis for that? Because you haven't had the hearings? You haven't had the witnesses in front of you? What is the authority of a court to second guess? The work of legislators? And so today, because Lochner is no longer the law, we don't really see that as an issue. We kind of understand that our legislators do that legwork and that hard work of figuring out what's going on what needs to happen, may not like the result. But you know, that's the way democracy works. But you do have fact finders in the legislature in the legislative bodies in the committee's that do all the legwork and the hard work of figuring out what needs to happen.

Joseph Hawthorne:

So ending the Lochner era seems to be more of an opening for the democratic process for I guess, as the constitution almost intended. You know, the critics of

Craig Estlinbaum:

Lochner would say it's a period of judicial activism where legislators were prohibited from from working for the best interests of the people that they represented. So there's a whole string of cases after all, Gar, then you had Lochner. And in coppage versus Kansas, you had a case where the court struck down state legislation prohibiting left DOD contracts. That's a union related case. And Adams versus Tanner another case following Lochner, the state struck down legislation. I mean, the court struck down legislation prohibiting private owned companies from assessing agency fees for their services. You had another case called hammer versus Dagon heart, striking down federal regulation of child labor. You had a case called Atkins versus Children's Hospital striking down federal legislation mandating a minimum wage level for women and children and District of Columbia. And there were so many other legislative acts that were struck down during this period. Not all of them were some of them were upheld as a legitimate exercise of police power. But it was generally seen in the area of Economic Regulation as a period of judicial activism, where the findings of legislation, legislators were routinely second guessed by the courts. And of course, all of this was also playing out in the lower courts as well cases it didn't make it to the Supreme Court, because, you know, the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear every case. Whereas, you know, trial courts have to hear what's filed and appellate courts usually have to hear what's broken.

Joseph Hawthorne:

So then, to clarify, where did this end?

Craig Estlinbaum:

This ended with the New Deal. There were still new deal legislation during FDR first term that was struck down during using the Lochner era, freedom of contract and judicial activism. But after the election of 1936, in which Franklin Roosevelt was elected for a second term, there came to the court a case called West Coast hotel, company versus parish. And this is a case that revisited the minimum wage law that was struck down in 1923. In Atkins versus Children's Hospital. And in this case, Justin, Justice Owen Roberts, who had been a a faithful vote, pro Lochner vote, switched and voted to with with the dissenters from Atkins that were you know, I don't know if the court was exactly the same 14 years later, but switched to give a five to four decision to overturn Atkins and uphold this law. And that switch is sometimes known and in public parlance as the switch and time that save nine because it was rumored and reported that justice Roosevelt was planning to pack the court in order to avoid having the problem of his new deal legislation overturned by the Supreme Court. And it is said that justice roberts switched his vote in his approach in these cases, to avoid the the possibility of a an increase court. Just Chief Justice Hughes, in his autobiography, said that after FDR, his election in 1936, he was able to persuade Justice Roberts to no longer basis votes in his own political, personal political views about our cases ought to be decided, and to side with us on the approach that he took to New Deal Breaker regulation, which was similar to the dissenting opinions and enlightener by Justice Harlan, and justice Holmes, which was essentially a type of rational person test, or what is now referred to as rational basis review, as long as there's a rational basis for Economic Regulation.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And that's, again, looking a little bit ahead past the turn of the century. But it's interesting to see it's kind of the thesis for the show, right, is that the effects of the turn of the 20th century right around the end beginning of the 1900s 1800s 1900s. affects the middle of the century affect the period right now and 100 years later. And I was just curious on the side, you know, do you know how often supreme court justices write autobiographies where they talk very detailed, I guess about, you know, their other justices, political views, that seems like a very testy water for the Chief Justice used to get into?

Craig Estlinbaum:

I don't know if justice Hughes resigned, Chief Justice used resigned from the court and wrote that as a private citizen. But I think supreme court justices used to be more political than there seem to be now. But that's partly because in those days, it was not uncommon for a president to nominate somebody to be a Supreme Court justice on a Wednesday and they would be confirmed on a Friday. Now, it's such a political football. I think justices are a lot more surprised. It's also wasn't that uncommon to see judges, justices nominated from the political arena, for example, Justice Brennan, who was nominated for the Supreme Court, in a firm by the Senate, confirmed by the Senate. He had been a politician. He'd been a candidate for governor or in California. You just don't see today, people coming out of the political class to become, or at least the open political class to become supreme court justices. President Taft later became a Supreme Court justice. You know,

Joseph Hawthorne:

I was gonna say that yeah, that's that's kind of the the classic example where he I think he was chief justice as well, if I'm not mistaken, which is really the job he wanted all along. I think famously, he was the Chief Justice before Hughes. Okay.

Unknown:

Yeah.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And so that fits perfectly in.

Craig Estlinbaum:

But maybe I may be wrong about that. You'll hear about it if I'm wrong. But yeah,

Joseph Hawthorne:

it was all my Taft fans out there. But But yeah, no, I mean, I doubt it's a whole thing to look into his his autobiographies where supreme court justices kind of throw each other under the bus. But the last thing that I wanted to ask you about is, you know, in a way, this period is very technical. It's about contract cases, it's about labor. And, you know, some of the issues of progressives and unions and all these different parts mixing together. It's not as famous, like I said before, as the lines separate but equal, but it's very, very important. You know, how do you think this period compares to today? What do you think about some of the parallels that people draw with the Lochner era? And I guess a chief john roberts court? Well, the

Craig Estlinbaum:

Lochner era is really interesting, because after the switch in time, I guess if you want to call it that way, around that period of time, I think it was a little bit before the Atkins decision, not the Atkins decision, the West Coast hotel decision, there was a case called Carolyn products. And that case included what's known as footnote four, the famous footnote for where the court said that economic regulations are going to be judged under what's called a rational basis test that comes out of the dissent from the Lochner case, but cases that involve personal rights, personal liberties would be subject to strict scrutiny. So cases involving racial discrimination and other types of, say free speech, let's say or equal due process protection would be judged under what's called the strict scrutiny test. So those legislation that impairs those individual liberties would be given a harder look than economic liberties. And that became, in a lot of ways the way the court handled this type of constitutional litigation going forward strict scrutiny for certain types of cases, rational basis test for other types of cases. Now, that is a little bit under attack today. Although you really don't find too many people that are overtly in favor of the Lochner era. It's kind of a discredited period. You do have this idea that Lochner, there is kind of an effort, I think, on some in some corners to rehabilitate Lochner today, but it hasn't really gotten a lot of traction in the courts themselves. But, for example, Justice Roberts, who you mentioned was critical of the Lochner era during his confirmation hearings, just Judge Robert Bork, during his confirmation hearings was critical of the Lochner era, they would certainly be representative of the right side of the judicial world and people on the left universally for this period of time because people that are more progressive tend to see the types of legislation that was overturned during the Lochner era as as as good things.

Joseph Hawthorne:

Are there any cases today that people point to as being similar to the Lochner era?

Craig Estlinbaum:

None that I can think of because nobody wants to associate this no one on the court wants to associate or be critic called revivalist of the Lochner era because it is such a it is a period where there was widely seen as being a period of substantial digital activism and nobody really wants to be called a judicial activist. I think what what, what what you do see is a little bit of a chipping away of the distinction between rational basis and strict scrutiny. People that are more in favor of legislation that might impair based upon free speech or race or or so so forth, might see strict scrutiny is something that maybe should be a little less strict and people that are against Economic Regulation would like to see Economic Regulation tested under some higher level of scrutiny, maybe intermediate scrutiny or something else. So you see kind of a juggling of the way these, these different tests are applied based upon the type of legislation at issue. But there really isn't anybody out there clamoring to return to the judicial activism of the Lochner era.

Joseph Hawthorne:

And I think this is a really good place to end it because when you hear, you know, someone talk about legislating from the bench, or judicial activism, or lumping that in with you know, being like a Lochner era judge or decision, you know, that people compare, you know what that means. Now, you know, the kind of slur that might be. But this has been really enlightening to talk about a huge period in early modern and turn of the century history from the Supreme Court and legal perspective. Again, I will remind everyone, that if you loved the voices that you heard today, or the guest voice, please subscribe, listen to hooks and runs with Craig Esteban and I will look forward to hearing and talking soon. Thanks so much, Greg.

Unknown:

Thank you for having me. I enjoyed it.