Muller v. Oregon
Table of Contents
Muller v. Oregon
Overview
Context
About the Author
Explanation and Analysis of the Document
Impact
Document Text
You don't have access to this content. Please try to log in with your institution. Sign In
Abstract
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, political progressives pursued economic and political reforms. Many pushed hard to improve working conditions for men, women, and children laboring in shops and factories. The women’s movement was pressing for the right to vote and the right to exercise autonomy in legal and economic affairs. In 1908, in Muller v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging a state law that regulated the employment of women. The Court’s decision gave rise to many questions about the progressive agenda and how its goals might be best achieved.
Contents
- Marbury v. Madison
- Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
- Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
- McCulloch v. Maryland
- Cohens v. Virginia
- Gibbons v. Ogden
- Worcester v. Georgia
- Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
- United States v. Amistad
- Prigg v. Pennsylvania
- Dred Scott v. Sandford
- Ableman v. Booth
- Ex parte Milligan
- Slaughterhouse Cases
- United States v. Cruikshank
- Reynolds v. United States
- Civil Rights Cases
- Elk v. Wilkins
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark
- Lochner v. New York
- Muller v. Oregon
- Frank v. Mangum
- Guinn v. United States
- Hammer v. Dagenhart
- Schenck v. United States
- Abrams v. United States
- Whitney v. California
- Olmstead v. United States
- Powell v. Alabama
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright
- National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
- West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
- Cantwell v. Connecticut
- Wickard v. Filburn
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
- Korematsu v. United States
- Sweatt v. Painter
- Dennis v. United States
- Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer
- Brown v. Board of Education
- Hernandez v. Texas
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot
- Mapp v. Ohio
- Baker v. Carr
- Engel v. Vitale
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- Katzenbach v. McClung
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
- Griswold v. Connecticut
- Bond v. Floyd
- Miranda v. Arizona
- South Carolina v. Katzenbach
- Loving v. Virginia
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
- New York Times Co. v. United States
- Flood v. Kuhn
- Furman v. Georgia
- San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
- Sierra Club v. Morton
- Roe v. Wade
- Milliken v. Bradley
- United States v. Nixon
- Craig v. Boren
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
- Frontiero v. Richardson
- Texas v. Johnson
- United States v. Lopez
- United States v. Virginia
- Clinton v. Jones
- Bush v. Gore
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
- Lawrence v. Texas
- District of Columbia v. Heller
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Shelby County v. Holder
- Obergefell v. Hodges
- Bostock v. Clayton County
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization