answers: Oregon
context: laws by making a female employee work more than ten hours in a single day. Muller was fined $10. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction. In Justice David Josiah Brewer's unanimous opinion, the Court upheld the Oregon regulation. The Court did not overrule "Lochner", but instead distinguished it on the basis of "the difference between the sexes". The child-bearing physiology and social role of women provided a strong state interest in reducing their working hours. That woman's physical </s> nevertheless had a constitutional right "to discuss the public issues of the day and thus in a lawful manner, without incitement to violence or crime, to seek redress of alleged grievances. That was of the essence of his guaranteed personal liberty." De Jonge's conviction was consequently reversed as a violation of the Due Process Clause. Over three decades later, the Supreme Court declared a criminal syndicalism law unconstitutional on its face in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), overruling "Whitney" and casting serious doubt on "Gitlow". "Brandenburg" reaffirmed the holding of "De Jonge" that peaceful political assembly is a right protected by </s> laws on the appropriate use of medications allowed. The Court first determined it did not need to grant substantial deference to the Justice Department's interpretation of its own regulation under "Auer v. Robbins" (1997) because the regulation merely restated the terms of the CSA. Likewise, the Court found that, although the phrase "legitimate medical purpose" in the statute is ambiguous, the Attorney General’s interpretation was not entitled to Chevron deference because the CSA delegated medical judgments to the expertise of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, not to the Attorney General. Finally, the Court found the Attorney
question: who won the case in mueller v. oregon