This article challenges the conventional narrative picturing the Supreme Court during the Progressive Era as an aggressive champion of the rights of property owners in the face of reform legislation. In fact, the Supreme Court largely accommodated the Progressive agenda, and in the process diminished the constitutional protection afforded property rights. The essay surveys the Court’s treatment of laws dealing with tenement reform, land use regulation, rent control, impairment of contracts, eminent domain and railroad regulation in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Progressives urged an expansive reading of the police power that trumped constitutional principles designed to safeguard individual property rights, and the Supreme Court proved broadly receptive to such arguments. It regularly upheld legislation restricting the rights of property owners, and in so doing paved the way for the subsequent emergence of New Deal jurisprudence. The myth of a Supreme Court frustrating the Progressive program is sharply at variance with the historical record, and rests upon a handful of atypical decisions. Indeed, the article suggests that scholars should explore why the Court did so little to vindicate the constitutional guarantees of property.

中文翻译：

---

进步时代的最高法院与财产权

本文挑战了将进步时代的最高法院描绘成在改革立法面前积极捍卫财产所有者权利的传统说法。事实上，最高法院在很大程度上适应了进步议程，并在此过程中削弱了宪法对财产权的保护。这篇文章调查了法院在 20 世纪头 20 年对涉及产权改革、土地使用监管、租金控制、合同损害、征用权和铁路监管的法律的处理。进步人士敦促对警察权力进行广泛解读，这种权力凌驾于旨在保护个人财产权的宪法原则之上，事实证明，最高法院广泛接受了这些论点。它经常维护限制财产所有者权利的立法，从而为随后新政法理学的出现铺平了道路。最高法院挫败进步计划的神话与历史记录大相径庭，并依赖于少数非典型决定。事实上，文章建议学者们应该探讨为什么法院在证明财产的宪法保障方面做得如此之少。