ds of this statement deriving from just Muller is low because a few years before this incident, there was another case in New York about the limiting of hours per day. This case was Lochner v. New York (1905) and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the ten-hour work day for bakery workers was unconstitutional because the hours that were spent working bore no ill-bearing on the employee’s health. Although Muller v. Oregon started the same year, with the innovation and popularity of newspapers and the increased ability in communications, it is likely that information about the Lochner v. New York had spread to Oregon. This is the most likely reason why Muller decided to fight the fine because it had already been done in New York; the lawyers there were able to prove that it did violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Louis L. Brandeis was a Boston attorney who had already made a name for himself in the New England area for defending the public interest. By request of Josephine Goldmark and Florentine Kelley of the Consumers’ League, Brandeis took this case to show how the Oregon law related to public health and safety. The Consumers’ League was an extremely effective league for women’s reform organization for its time. His report contained the traditional precedents for the court, which were two pages long. Brandeis also gave the court non legal evidence that was a hundred-thirteen page report that told the court how the long hours at factories affected women economically, sociologically, and physically. The Consumers’ League helped to supply Brandeis with the sources and materials that he needed to win Muller v. Oregon. Brandeis did not think women to be inferior nor subservient to men, however his approach to dealing with the case had to include such notions and the age-old belief that men were better because of the time period that this case took place in.The time period that this case was in is ca...
