"Robes and Rulings, Rights and Wrongs: The Similar Pro-Business and Culturally Conservative Polarizing Shifts of the Supreme Court in the 1920s, 1980s, and 2020s"
- High Flier
- Feb 26
- 11 min read
Introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court has often served as a battleground for power struggles over corporate regulation, civil liberties, and government authority. Across different eras—the 1920s, the 1980s, and the 2020s—the Court has followed strikingly similar patterns, favoring corporate interests, limiting federal regulatory power, and shifting rightward on social issues.
While economic and business cases show a clear anti-regulatory bias, each of these time periods also saw major decisions on reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and civil liberties, revealing a judicial tendency to expand corporate freedoms while restricting personal freedoms.
Let’s examine how these eras align across these issues.
1920s Supreme Court: The Pro-Business Court
Historical Context:
The 1920s Supreme Court operated in an era of economic expansion, deregulation, and conservative policymaking under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. The Court was heavily pro-business, frequently ruling against labor rights and economic regulations. It was also resistant to progressive social change, often striking down New Deal-style reforms before they even emerged.
Composition & Ideology:
Justice | Appointing President | Ideology |
William Howard Taft (CJ) | Harding | Conservative |
Oliver Wendell Holmes | Roosevelt | Progressive |
Willis Van Devanter | Taft | Conservative |
James Clark McReynolds | Wilson | Conservative |
Louis Brandeis | Wilson | Progressive |
George Sutherland | Harding | Conservative |
Pierce Butler | Harding | Conservative |
Edward T. Sanford | Harding | Conservative |
Harlan F. Stone | Coolidge | Moderate |
1920s: The "Lochner Era" & Pro-Business Conservatism
The Supreme Court in the 1920s was dominated by conservative justices who prioritized corporate rights, limited government regulation, and laissez-faire economics.
This period, sometimes called the Lochner Era (after Lochner v. New York, 1905), was characterized by striking down worker protections, minimum wage laws, and social regulations.
The Court upheld corporate-friendly policies while limiting progressive reforms like child labor laws (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 1922).
Key Figures: Chief Justice William Howard Taft (a former pro-business president), and Justices George Sutherland, Willis Van Devanter, James McReynolds, and Pierce Butler—known as the “Four Horsemen” for opposing New Deal regulations.
1. The 1920s: A Court of Corporate Power and Social Control
The 1920s Supreme Court was pro-business, anti-labor, and resistant to expanding civil rights. While it blocked government attempts to regulate the economy, it also upheld laws that controlled personal behavior—particularly those targeting women, immigrants, and marginalized groups.
Corporate and Economic Cases
🔹 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) – Struck down minimum wage laws for women, favoring corporate interests.🔹 Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) – Blocked federal restrictions on child labor, benefiting businesses at the expense of labor protections.
Reproductive Rights and Personal Liberties
🔹 Buck v. Bell (1927) – Upheld forced sterilization of people with disabilities and "undesirable" traits under eugenics laws. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ infamous line, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," justified state power over reproductive rights.🔹 Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) – Struck down a Nebraska law banning foreign language education, a rare pro-civil liberties decision.
LGBTQ+ and Morality Laws
Laws against same-sex relationships, birth control, and "immoral behavior" were largely upheld.
While the Court did not directly rule on same-sex relationships, many states criminalized LGBTQ+ individuals under morality and vagrancy laws.
Impact
Regulated personal behavior but protected business interests.
Eugenics laws justified reproductive restrictions.
Anti-immigrant and anti-union decisions weakened marginalized communities.
Criminal justice laws expanded, disproportionately harming marginalized groups.
Key Trends:
A pro-business majority frequently ruled against labor laws and regulations, reinforcing corporate power over workers.
Conservative justices limited government intervention in the economy, striking down early labor protections.
The progressive minority (Holmes and Brandeis) often dissented, advocating for worker rights and free speech.
Social issues, like civil liberties, were generally not prioritized in this era, as economic conservatism dominated.
Key Points:
Pro-business rulings weakened labor protections.
Restrictive social policies, including upholding forced sterilization (Buck v. Bell).
Laissez-faire economic policies mirrored corporate interests.
1980s Supreme Court: The Reagan Revolution
Historical Context:
By the 1980s, the Supreme Court reflected the political shift of the Reagan era, emphasizing deregulation, corporate expansion, and social conservatism. While economic policies mirrored the pro-business stance of the 1920s, the Court was increasingly involved in cases related to civil rights, abortion, LGBTQ+ issues, and affirmative action. The Court began to restrict federal regulatory power while bolstering states’ rights and conservative social policies.
Composition & Ideology (1986 - Rehnquist Court):
Justice | Appointing President | Ideology |
William Rehnquist (CJ) | Reagan | Conservative |
Byron White | Kennedy | Moderate |
Thurgood Marshall | Johnson | Progressive |
Harry Blackmun | Nixon | Moderate/Progressive |
John Paul Stevens | Ford | Moderate |
Sandra Day O’Connor | Reagan | Conservative/Moderate |
Antonin Scalia | Reagan | Conservative |
Anthony Kennedy | Reagan | Conservative/Moderate |
Lewis Powell (until 1987) / Robert Bork (Rejected) / Anthony Kennedy (Confirmed in 1988) | Nixon / Reagan | Conservative (Bork was ultraconservative but was rejected) |
1980s: The Reagan Revolution & The Shift Toward Originalism
With Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Supreme Court took a sharply conservative turn.
Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia (a staunch originalist), William Rehnquist (elevated to Chief Justice), and Sandra Day O’Connor (first woman on the Court, but a moderate conservative).
The Court was pro-corporate, skeptical of government regulation, and favored law-and-order policies.
This era saw limitations on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978), increased state power in criminal justice (Michigan v. Long, 1983), and curbing of labor protections.
The Federalist Society emerged as a key player in shaping the judiciary, promoting originalist and textualist interpretations.
2. The 1980s: A Conservative Resurgence Under Reagan
The 1980s marked the rise of originalism and conservative judicial philosophy under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, shifting the Court toward a business-friendly, socially conservative approach.
Corporate and Economic Cases
🔹 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) – Allowed federal labor protections but sparked conservative backlash.🔹 Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1981) – Limited corporate monopolies but was an outlier in an era favoring deregulation.
Reproductive Rights and Personal Liberties
🔹 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) – First major challenge to Roe v. Wade, allowing states to impose restrictions on abortion (e.g., banning public funding for abortion services).🔹 Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) – Upheld anti-sodomy laws, criminalizing LGBTQ+ relationships and reinforcing conservative social norms.
LGBTQ+ and Civil Liberties
Anti-gay laws were upheld, including bans on employment for LGBTQ+ individuals.
War on Drugs policies led to increased policing and incarceration, disproportionately affecting minority communities.
Free speech rulings became more conservative, restricting student and worker protections.
Impact
Corporations gained more power through deregulation.
Abortion rights were weakened, laying the groundwork for future restrictions.
LGBTQ+ rights were actively rolled back, with sodomy laws upheld until the 2000s.
Criminal justice laws expanded, disproportionately harming marginalized groups.
Key Trends:
A shift toward corporate-friendly rulings and deregulation, reflecting Reaganomics.
Restrictions on affirmative action and civil rights protections in favor of “colorblind” legal interpretations.
Reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ issues became major legal battlegrounds:
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992, after the 1980s court set the stage) upheld Roe v. Wade but allowed state-level restrictions.
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) upheld laws criminalizing homosexuality, a setback for LGBTQ+ rights.
A strong conservative bloc (Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor, Kennedy) controlled many major decisions, often favoring states’ rights over federal intervention.
Dissenters like Marshall and Blackmun warned that corporate power was rising while civil liberties were being curtailed.
Key Points:
Economic deregulation similar to the 1920s.
Restrictive social policies (upholding anti-LGBTQ+ laws in Bowers v. Hardwick).
Roe v. Wade weakened (Webster v. RHS, 1989).
Present-Day Supreme Court (2020s): A Conservative Supermajority
Historical Context:
Today’s Court reflects the culmination of decades of conservative legal strategy, with a 6-3 conservative supermajority solidified by Donald Trump’s appointments. This Court has dramatically reshaped economic policy, regulatory oversight, and civil liberties, much like the Courts of the 1920s and 1980s, but at an even faster and more aggressive pace.
Composition & Ideology (2024 - Roberts Court):
Justice | Appointing President | Ideology |
John Roberts (CJ) | Bush (W.) | Conservative (Institutionalist) |
Clarence Thomas | Bush (H.W.) | Conservative |
Samuel Alito | Bush (W.) | Conservative |
Sonia Sotomayor | Obama | Progressive |
Elena Kagan | Obama | Moderate/Progressive |
Neil Gorsuch | Trump | Conservative |
Brett Kavanaugh | Trump | Conservative |
Amy Coney Barrett | Trump | Conservative |
Ketanji Brown Jackson | Biden | Progressive |
2020s: Conservative Supermajority & Deregulation
Under Donald Trump, the Supreme Court gained a 6-3 conservative supermajority with appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Much like the 1920s and 1980s, the modern Court has been corporate-friendly, skeptical of federal power, and socially conservative.
Key rulings include limiting federal agency power (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022), weakening labor unions (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 2021), and striking down affirmative action (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023).
The Court has also favored religious freedom over secular governance, echoing earlier decisions that privileged business interests over social policy.
Key Trends:
Deregulation mirrors both the 1920s and 1980s Courts, favoring corporate interests over labor rights.
Reproductive rights were drastically rolled back in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), overturning Roe v. Wade.
LGBTQ+ rights remain under attack, with rulings like 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) allowing discrimination in business services.
Weakened government regulatory power (e.g., limiting EPA authority) benefits corporations and mirrors 1920s-era laissez-faire policies.
Workers’ rights cases have largely favored employers, limiting union protections and workers' ability to sue.
State power is being expanded at the expense of federal protections, much like the 1980s Court’s states’ rights doctrine.
Key Points
Weakened regulatory agencies (West Virginia v. EPA).
Overturned Roe v. Wade (Dobbs v. Jackson, 2022).
LGBTQ+ rights rolled back (303 Creative v. Elenis).
Comparison of the Three Courts:
Factor | 1920s Court | 1980s Court | 2020s Court |
Economic Deregulation | High | High | Very High |
Corporate Favorability | Strongly Pro-Business | Pro-Business | Extremely Pro-Business |
Worker Rights Protections | Weak | Weakening | Weak |
Civil Rights Focus | Minimal | Increasing but Restrictive | Actively Rolling Back |
LGBTQ+ Rights | Not Considered | Criminalization (Bowers v. Hardwick) | Rollbacks (303 Creative v. Elenis) |
Reproductive Rights | Not Addressed | Roe v. Wade Threatened | Roe v. Wade Overturned |
Role of Government | Limited Federal Power | States’ Rights Expansion | Further States’ Rights Expansion |
Judicial Philosophy | Conservative Dominance | Conservative Shift | Conservative Supermajority |
Historical Pattern & Future Forecast
The 1920s and 1980s set the stage for severe economic collapses (Great Depression & Great Recession, respectively) due to unchecked corporate power and deregulation. If history repeats, today’s extreme deregulation and corporate favoritism could trigger another financial crisis—especially as inequality rises, labor protections shrink, and the social safety net is weakened.
Key Warning Signs:
The wealth gap is at its highest since the 1920s—a pattern that preceded the Great Depression.
Corporate profits are soaring, while wages stagnate—mirroring both the 1920s and 1980s.
The Supreme Court is undoing civil rights progress—potentially leading to increased social unrest.
Economic deregulation could create another financial collapse, as happened in 1929 and 2008.
If these trends continue unchecked, we could see a repeat of past economic crises, leading to potential political upheaval and major reform efforts in the coming decades.
Comparisons & Parallels Across Eras
Feature | 1920s | 1980s | 2020s |
Judicial Ideology | Conservative, pro-business | Conservative, originalist | Conservative, originalist |
Government Regulation | Anti-regulation, pro-corporate | Deregulation under Reaganomics | Limiting federal agencies’ power |
Labor & Worker Rights | Weakening unions, blocking protections | Weakening unions, favoring employers | Anti-union rulings, gig economy rulings |
Social Issues | Individual rights often restricted | Law-and-order policies, limited civil rights expansions | Restrictions on affirmative action, abortion rights |
Major Legal Philosophy | Lochner Era laissez-faire approach | Originalism & textualism | Originalism, deregulation, and religious freedom rulings |
Recurring Judicial Cycles
The 1920s, 1980s, and 2020s all feature a Supreme Court favoring business interests, restricting government regulation, and leaning conservative in social policy. Each of these eras has led to major economic shifts, social inequality concerns, and eventual political backlash, raising the question: Will history repeat itself with another judicial pendulum swing?
Landmark Supreme Court Cases: A Comparative Analysis of the 1920s, 1980s, and 2020s
To highlight the parallels between the 1920s, 1980s, and the 2020s, let’s examine key Supreme Court cases from each era. These cases showcase the Court’s stance on corporate power, government regulation, labor rights, and social policies.
1. The 1920s: Corporate Power and the Lochner Era
During this time, the Supreme Court consistently favored business interests, struck down regulations, and limited workers’ rights.
🔹 Case: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Issue: A Washington, D.C., law set minimum wages for women and children.
Ruling: The Court struck it down, arguing that government-mandated wages violated "freedom of contract."
Impact:
Strengthened the pro-business, anti-regulation philosophy of the time.
Made it harder for states to pass wage protections, particularly for vulnerable workers.
This decision foreshadowed the battles over labor laws in the 1930s and was later overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).
🔹 Case: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) (The Child Labor Tax Case)
Issue: Congress passed a tax penalty on companies that employed child labor.
Ruling: The Court struck it down, stating that Congress was overreaching into business affairs.
Impact:
Protected corporate power at the expense of child labor reform.
Set a precedent for limiting federal economic intervention, much like later rulings in the 1980s and 2020s.
2. The 1980s: Reagan’s Deregulatory Push and Conservative Legal Revolution
By the 1980s, the Court embraced originalism, limited federal power, and sided with businesses over workers and consumers.
🔹 Case: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
Issue: Could state-run businesses (like transit systems) be forced to comply with federal labor laws, like minimum wage and overtime rules?
Ruling: The Court upheld the federal government’s authority to regulate state-run businesses under the Commerce Clause.
Impact:
A rare pro-worker decision, but it sparked strong backlash from conservatives who wanted to limit federal power.
Reagan-era justices sought to overturn or restrict similar labor protections, a trend that re-emerged in the 2020s.
🔹 Case: Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1981)
Issue: Maryland banned oil producers from operating gas stations to prevent monopolies.
Ruling: The Court upheld the state’s law, limiting corporate consolidation.
Impact:
One of the last cases in this period that imposed anti-monopoly restrictions.
Subsequent cases chipped away at corporate regulations, setting the stage for the extreme deregulation of the 2000s and beyond.
3. The 2020s: The Conservative Supermajority and the New Judicial Era
Much like the 1920s and 1980s, the current Supreme Court favors corporate power, weakens federal regulation, and leans heavily conservative.
🔹 Case: West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
Issue: Could the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate carbon emissions from power plants?
Ruling: The Court limited the EPA’s authority, ruling that Congress did not explicitly grant it such broad power.Impact:
Significantly weakened federal regulatory agencies, similar to 1920s-era rulings that favored corporations.
Echoed Reagan-era efforts to limit government intervention in business.
🔹 Case: Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021)
Issue: Could California require agricultural businesses to allow union organizers onto their property?
Ruling: The Court struck down the law, ruling that it violated property rights.Impact:
A major anti-union ruling, making it harder for workers to organize.
Mirrors 1920s-era hostility toward labor rights and the 1980s’ corporate-friendly rulings.
Key Similarities Across Eras
Theme | 1920s | 1980s | 2020s |
Corporate Power | Business-friendly rulings, laissez-faire economics | Deregulation, weakening of labor protections | Weakening regulatory agencies, anti-union decisions |
Workers' Rights | Anti-labor rulings (child labor, minimum wage laws struck down) | Anti-union sentiment, limiting worker protections | Restrictions on unionization, gig economy rulings |
Federal vs. State Power | Limited federal intervention in business | Pushed back against federal oversight | Weakened agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and the NLRB |
Social Policies | Restricted civil liberties (e.g., labor laws, immigration restrictions) | "Law and order" focus, limited affirmative action | Limits on affirmative action, reproductive freedoms, body autonomy, voting rights restrictions |
History Repeats Itself—But What Comes Next?
The Supreme Court has cycled through periods of corporate favoritism, deregulation, and conservative dominance, with the 1920s, 1980s, and 2020s mirroring each other. However, history also suggests that these conservative legal waves are often followed by pushback and reform:
The New Deal era (1930s-40s) reversed many 1920s decisions.
The Warren Court (1950s-70s) expanded civil rights after the conservative rulings of the 1940s.
Could a progressive judicial shift be on the horizon in the 2030s?
Conclusion: Learning from the Past
The Supreme Court has historically played a pivotal role in shaping economic and civil rights policies. The current Court, much like those of the 1920s and 1980s, prioritizes corporate power and limits federal protections, potentially setting the stage for major societal consequences. If history is a guide, this era of deregulation, corporate favoritism, and shrinking civil liberties may lead to economic instability and renewed political movements for reform.