Why did Justice Holmes believe the Bakeshop Act was a legitimate health measure?

In his dissent for Lochner v. New York, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. did not explicitly detail specific medical evidence to argue that the Bakeshop Act was a health measure. Instead, he grounded his position in the principle of judicial restraint regarding economic policy.

Holmes argued that the Constitution should not be interpreted to embody any particular economic theory, such as laissez-faire. He maintained that the state’s right to interfere with the liberty of contract was well-established by historical precedents, such as laws against usury or Sunday work.

Ultimately, Holmes concluded that a reasonable person could find the hours provision to be legitimately related to health. Therefore, he believed the court should defer to the "dominant opinion" of the public and the legislature rather than striking down the law based on the majority's own economic preferences.1