Liberty, Protection, and Women's Work

Investigating the Boundaries between Public and Private

Bibliographic Data

ID12175673
AuthorsJulie Novkov (0000-0002-6061-2821, corresponding author)
Year1996
Volume21
Issue04
Pages857-899
Publication date1996-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLaw & Social Inquiry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0897-6546 • E-ISSN: 1747-4469
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00099.x
OpenAlexW1994867571
LanguageEN
References cited4

During the Progressive Era, the U. S. state and federal courts considered constitutional challenges to protective labor legislation. While courts often struck down generalized protective legislation, they frequently upheld such legislation for women. I explore the reasoning in the cases decided between 1897 and 1923, showing that the courts developed understandings of liberty for women that differed from those for men. In opposition to traditional separate spheres reasoning, I show that the courts viewed men's exercise of liberty as depending on their private capacities to be free, while women's labor was subject to public control due to state interest in their reproductive capacities. I suggest that constitutional theorists who are studying substantive due process should place more emphasis on courts'conceptions of the subjects of due process guarantees rather than considering solely the challenged statutes' restriction of liberty. I develop a dynamic and complex understanding of liberty to capture this aspect of the relationship between constitutional theory and gender

Law and economics · Legislation · Opposition (politics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · State (computer science · Statute · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics · Labor Movements and Unions · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Reproductive Health and Technologies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub