I initially thought that Lochner v New York was a faulty Supreme Court decision because it used Substantive Due process, but now I’m not so sure. Doesn’t Article 1 section 10 – “No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts – make it clear that States may not infringe upon contracts such as those in the Baker business?
Also, it has been stated that substantive due process was used in the Dred Scott case. If so, how? I do not see it.
1) Barring particular contractual provisions ab initio is not the same as impairing the obligation of a valid contract; and
2) Chief Justice Taney’s reasoning was that denying people the right to take slaves into the territories denied them a property right without due process–although there was no contract at issue in the case. In other words, his ruling wasn’t about procedure, but about substance.