Nick, when I say anti-canon, does that mean anything to you?

Yeah, like Supreme Court anti-canon?

Yeah.

I always think these are the cases that aren't just sort of bad. They were decided badly and so badly they can't be used by any future cases as precedent, right?

Right, exactly. The decisions wherein the court got something so

wrong that they cannot be considered precedent, right? The court can't reference

back to them, don't build a future opinion on the opinions there and the list is typically

as follows.

Dread Scott v. U.S.

Plessy v Ferguson, Lochner v New York, and Coramatsu, the U.S.

And you know, not all legal scholars agree that all of these cases are bad jurisprudence as we call it I just want to make that

clear but we here at Civics 101 are calling the Mantic Cannon and we have made

episodes about every case on this list except for one.

Except for one, Hannah.

It's the one I know nothing about.

Well, aren't you, Nick Capadiche, lucky to be here?

And aren't I, Hannah McCarthy?

This is Civics 101.

Today we are taking on the case, of course, of Lochner v New York.

Nick, why do you think we have not dug into Lochner?

Honestly, it's, it's like it's not shouting ill will from the page like the others as far as I can tell.

Like it doesn't feel evil in the same way it doesn't make you balk.

...