Taft, Sanford, and Stone concurring silently in per curiam decision striking down Arizona' s minimum-wage statute, and Holmes concurring only because he regarded himself as bound by the authority of Adkins

—sustained the judgment of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, declaring unconstitutional the minimum wage law of that State, which was applicable only to women.

—is the statement: "Mr. Justice Holmes requests that it be stated that his concurrence is solely upon the ground that he regards himself bound by the decision in Adkins

It is significant that on of the principle economic arguments for minimum wage laws is compromise in such a statute, namely, the principle that a business that cannot pay a "living" for at least a "reasonable" wage is a parisite supported at the ex-pense of society.

Six years after the Court had upheld regulation of hours of labor, it held 5 to 3 that regulation of wages violated the due process clause.

In 1923, the Court, in a memorandum decision, felt itself bound by the Adkins case, and declared unconstitutional an Arizona statute which was substantially like the District of Columbia statute.

—where the Court in a per curiam opinion, on the authority of the Adkins case held unconstitutional an Arizona statute prescribing a minimum wage for women of $16 a week as essential to provide the necessaries of life, Mr. Justice Brandeis voiced the dissent.

Moreover, article 14 will lead to endless litigation and bring the courts into the same type of confrontation with the legislature as that experienced by the US Supreme Court during its period of substantive due process

This court, on the authority of the Adkins case and with the acquiescence of all the justices who dissented from the decision,[3] held repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment statutes of Arizona and Arkansas,[4] respectively, fixing minimum wages for women.

Progressive legal scholars from the 1930s through the 1960s sought to explain why the Supreme Court had set itself in such bald opposition to the concurrent branches of the federal government

[BOOK] The Taft Court: Volume 10: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930

[BOOK] Making Minimum Wage: Elsie Parrish Versus the West Coast Hotel Company

[BOOK] Justice and Faith: The Frank Murphy Story