Muller v. Oregon 1908 Ruling

Muller v. Oregon 1908 Ruling Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation  Muller v. Oregon 1908 Ruling Brief Summary of Muller v. Oregon (1908) Case On 19th February 1903, Oregon implemented a law that changed women’s working life for many years. Section one of the act postulated that “no female (shall) be employed in any mechanical establishment, or factory, or laundry in this State more than ten hours during any one day” (Wolloch, 1996). Indeed, it was the one that the Supreme Court used in Muller v. Oregon ruling. On 4th September 1905, Grand Laundry’s supervisor in Portland, Joe Haselbock, required a worker, Emma Gotcher, to perform her duties beyond the daily ten-hour limit. Fourteen days later, Muller, the Grand Laundry owner, was summoned by the Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Despite Muller’s defense lawyer, William Fenton, effort to convince the Supreme Court of Oregon to rule in favor of his client, it upheld the 1903 act. As such, the defendant was fined $10. The Supreme Court’s 1908 ruling in Muller v. Oregon was a good decision because it safeguarded women’s health, which was perceived as the primary determinant for human race vigor. Criteria, Basis, or Standards Used to Judge the Decision by the Supreme Court in Muller v. Oregon Based on the Morning Oregonian Newspaper, the Supreme Court’s 1908 decision was the beginning of American civilization. In reality, traditionally, women were considered inferior to men. They were entitled to domestic chores, such as taking care of their children and husbands. Due to the duty of childrearing, females had no enough time left to work. In particular, society started changing its perspective on working women after World War I. Females showed their capability to handle tasks meant for men such as providing for their children during the Great War when their husbands were fighting in the battlefield. The decision restricting women to work over ten hours daily safeguarded their productive and healthy well-being. As the Morning Oregonian Newspaper asserts, “the decision removes women from the category of beasts of burden whose labor may be exploited by her industrial master” (“A Momentous Decision,” 1908). The Supreme Court ruling portrayed that the country cared for the health of females since they were the mothers of citizens. Consequently, the law respected motherhood since women were perceived as sustainers of cultures. The other criterion that a person uses to justify the Supreme Court's 1908 decision in Muller v. Oregon is the breadwinner's ideology. Traditionally, men's primary responsibility was to provide for their families. That is the reason why there was no law limiting the working hours for males. In the 1900s, society had well-defined roles for both women and men. The Supreme Court might have been driven by societal needs to enact the 1903 act. On that note, if women worked for many hours in the laundry or other jobs outside the home, they would have failed in their communal and familial duties. The New York Times (1908) argues that the Supreme Court did not enact the law based on females' interests and comfort, but it was implemented by considering the posterity of human race ("The Position of Women," 1908). The court believed that women might h...