In Defense of "Footnote Four": A Historical Analysis of the New Deal's Effect on Land Regulation in the U.S. Supreme Court

By Dodrill, Christopher S. | Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

In Defense of "Footnote Four": A Historical Analysis of the New Deal's Effect on Land Regulation in the U.S. Supreme Court

Dodrill, Christopher S., Law and Contemporary Problems

At the turn of the nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court established and reinforced numerous so-called "economic rights." Lochner v. New York--this period's paradigm case--held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause contained an implicit right to contract. (1) During the Lochner era, the Court invalidated almost 200 federal and state economic and labor regulations for interfering with the right to contract and for violating substantive due process. (2) In 1937, however, Justice Stone's famous "footnote four" in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (3) closed the coffin on Lochner. After Carolene Products, the Court stopped applying heightened scrutiny to economic legislation, and it began consciously protecting "discrete and insular minorities." (4) Though most would accept that footnote four greatly affected the Court's review of social legislation, some also see Carolene Products as ending an era of heightened protection for real-property rights. (5) This view is mistaken.

Though Carolene Products marked a dramatic shift in the Court's approach to social and labor legislation, it did not affect the Court's already deferential review of land regulation. And why would it? The Lochner Court did not review land regulations with the same heightened scrutiny as it did economic legislation. The Lochner Court deferred to local exercises of the police power to regulate health, safety, and morality. It rejected most landowner challenges to land regulations and applied a consistent standard of review that favored government regulators, striking down only those land regulations it deemed "clearly arbitrary." There was no need for the post-Carolene Products Court to lower the scrutiny of land regulation because, unlike its approach toward social legislation, the Lochner Court deferred to state and local governments in the area of land regulation.

A comparison of Lochner-era land-regulation cases with post-Carolene Products land-regulation cases reveals that the New Deal did not doctrinally relax the Court's review of land regulation. The Court continued to apply the Lochner-era test through the New Deal's jurisprudential realignment. In fact, beginning in the late 1970s, the Court's balancing test actually favored property-owner plaintiffs and raised the bar for land regulators relative to the Lochner Court's standard of review. This article's purpose is neither to exhaustively catalog land-regulation cases, nor to judge the propriety of the Court's decisions. Rather, its purpose is to correct the mistaken view that the New Deal and the accompanying shift in the Court's social-welfare jurisprudence affected the Court's approach to land-regulation cases.

Part I of this article explains the Lochner-era Supreme Court's standard of review through an analysis of land-regulation cases decided between 1909 and 1937. Part II describes the approach taken by the Court after Carolene Products, between 1937 and 1980, and demonstrates that the Court's approach did not become more government-friendly, but if anything, became more landowner-friendly. Part III concludes.



Philip Nichols' 1917 treatise on eminent domain demonstrates the broad scope of the Lochner-era police power. Of that era's police power, Nichols wrote, "[I]t is not confined to the suppression of what is offensive, disorderly or unsanitary, but extends to so dealing with the conditions which exist in a state as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of its people." (6) Nichols explained that the police power was defined by a reasonableness standard, which focused solely on the government's action--judicial scrutiny concentrated on the regulation's purpose, requiring only that it serve the general welfare. (7)

During the Lochner era, the Court did not analyze land-regulation cases as it does today. Then, the Court reviewed land regulations through the lens of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause rather than the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

In Defense of "Footnote Four": A Historical Analysis of the New Deal's Effect on Land Regulation in the U.S. Supreme Court


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?