Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Hughes Court

The Hughes Court refers to the of the from February 1930 to June 1941, when served as . This period encompassed the and the implementation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's programs, during which the Court initially struck down several federal economic regulations as exceeding Congress's commerce power or involving improper delegation of legislative authority, including the National Industrial Recovery Act in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. (1935) and the in 1936. These rulings heightened tensions with the executive branch, prompting Roosevelt's unsuccessful 1937 proposal to expand the Court by up to six justices, known as the court-packing plan. Following the plan's defeat and amid judicial retirements, the Court's composition shifted with Roosevelt's appointments of justices such as , Stanley Reed, , , and , leading to a "constitutional revolution" in 1937 where it began upholding key measures, including the National Labor Relations Act in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. and state minimum-wage laws in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. The Hughes Court also advanced First Amendment protections against in Near v. Minnesota (1931) and due process rights in criminal cases through decisions like Powell v. Alabama (1932), while upholding certain state economic regulations as in Nebbia v. New York (1934). Overall, it marked a transition from stricter scrutiny of economic legislation reminiscent of the toward greater deference to legislative solutions for economic crises, influencing the Court's role in and administrative power.

Formation and Context

Appointment of Charles Evans Hughes

William Howard Taft, who had served as Chief Justice since 1921, resigned from the Supreme Court on February 3, 1930, due to deteriorating health; he died five weeks later on March 8, 1930. President Herbert Hoover, seeking a successor with substantial judicial experience amid the economic turmoil following the October 1929 stock market crash, nominated Charles Evans Hughes on the same day Taft resigned. Hughes, a progressive Republican, brought prior familiarity with the Court, having served as an Associate Justice from 1910 to 1916 after his appointment by President Taft. Hughes' career prior to the nomination included election as in 1906, where he pursued reforms in public utilities regulation and corporate oversight; a narrow defeat as the presidential candidate in 1916; and a tenure as from 1921 to 1925 under President Harding, during which he negotiated international agreements on naval disarmament and . These roles positioned him as a figure capable of navigating the anticipated legal challenges from the deepening economic emergency, including potential federal responses to widespread bank failures and unemployment rising sharply by early 1930. The confirmed Hughes unanimously by on February 13, 1930, reflecting broad bipartisan support for his qualifications and non-partisan reputation. Hughes was sworn in as on February 24, 1930, marking the transition from the —known for its conservative upholding intervention—to a period where the would confront unprecedented economic . His return to the bench after 14 years was seen as a stabilizing force, given his earlier judicial tenure and executive experience, at a time when public confidence in institutions was eroding amid the Great Depression's onset.

Initial Court Composition in 1930

Charles Evans Hughes was sworn in as Chief Justice on June 2, 1930, succeeding William Howard Taft, with Owen J. Roberts joining as an associate justice on the same day to fill the vacancy left by Edward T. Sanford's death earlier that year. The initial nine-member Court thus comprised Chief Justice Hughes and associate justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Louis D. Brandeis, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan F. Stone, and Owen J. Roberts.
JusticeAppointing PresidentYear Commissioned
Charles Evans Hughes (Chief)1930
1902
1911
James C. McReynoldsWoodrow Wilson1914
Louis D. BrandeisWoodrow Wilson1916
1922
Pierce Butler1923
1925
Owen J. Roberts1930
This lineup reflected a predominantly conservative ideological balance, anchored by the "Four Horsemen"—Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler—who consistently opposed expansive federal economic regulations and favored states' rights and limited government intervention. Justices Brandeis and Stone leaned toward progressive views on social and economic issues, while Holmes, nearing retirement, often dissented in favor of deference to legislative authority; Hughes and the newer Roberts emerged as potential swing votes in closely divided cases.

Membership and Changes

Timeline of Justices and Vacancies

The Hughes Court commenced on February 24, 1930, with Charles Evans Hughes's appointment as by President , succeeding . Associate Justice Edward T. Sanford's death on March 8, 1930, prompted to nominate Owen J. Roberts, confirmed on May 20 and commissioned June 2, 1930, maintaining the Court's full complement of nine justices and preserving its conservative-leaning balance dominated by the "Four Horsemen" (Van Devanter, McReynolds, , and ).
DateEventJustice(s) InvolvedNominating PresidentImmediate Implication
January 12, 1932RetirementOliver Wendell Holmes Jr.N/ACreated a vacancy on the liberal wing; quickly filled without disrupting quorum or decision-making continuity, as Benjamin N. Cardozo was commissioned March 14, 1932, by Hoover, solidifying the three-justice liberal bloc (Brandeis, Stone, Cardozo).
June 2, 1937RetirementWillis Van DevanterN/AEnded service of a key conservative; replaced by Hugo L. Black, commissioned August 19, 1937, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, fracturing the Four Horsemen alliance and enabling a pivotal ideological shift toward upholding New Deal measures in 1937 rulings.
January 17, 1938RetirementGeorge SutherlandN/ARemoved another conservative stalwart; succeeded by Stanley F. Reed, commissioned January 31, 1938, by Roosevelt, further eroding opposition to federal economic regulation and ensuring no quorum issues amid accelerating appointments.
July 9, 1938DeathBenjamin N. CardozoN/AVacancy on the liberal side; Felix Frankfurter commissioned January 30, 1939, by Roosevelt, maintaining progressive momentum without interim delays affecting case loads.
February 13, 1939RetirementLouis D. BrandeisN/ALoss of the Court's senior liberal; William O. Douglas commissioned April 17, 1939, by Roosevelt, bolstering the emerging Roosevelt-appointed majority and facilitating deference to administrative agencies.
November 16, 1939DeathPierce ButlerN/AEliminated the last Four Horseman; Frank Murphy commissioned February 5, 1940, by Roosevelt, completing the replacement of pre-New Deal conservatives and solidifying a 5-4 liberal edge by early 1940.
January 31, 1941RetirementJames C. McReynoldsN/AFinal pre-Hughes retirement of an original conservative; though replaced post-Hughes by James F. Byrnes (commissioned June 12, 1941), it underscored the Court's transformation under Roosevelt's influence without vacancy-induced disruptions.
June 30, 1941Retirement (Chief Justice)Charles Evans HughesN/AConcluded the Hughes era; Harlan F. Stone elevated to Chief Justice on July 2, 1941, ensuring seamless transition and continuity in a now Roosevelt-dominated bench.
No prolonged vacancies occurred, preserving the Court's quorum requirement of six justices and operational stability throughout the period. The post-1937 appointments, totaling seven under (including Stone's elevation), decisively altered the ideological composition from conservative restraint on federal power to greater accommodation of executive and legislative initiatives.

Notable Appointments and Resignations

President nominated Owen J. Roberts to the on May 20, 1930, to succeed Edward T. Sanford, who had died on March 8, 1930. Roberts, a former prosecutor who led the investigation into the under President , was chosen for his demonstrated independence and legal acumen rather than partisan alignment, with aiming to bolster the Court's credibility during the onset of the ; confirmed by the 51-10, Roberts initially aligned with conservatives but emerged as a pivotal in early economic regulation cases, influencing outcomes like the 1936 "switch in time" on minimum wage laws. The most consequential transitions occurred after President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 court-packing proposal, prompting retirements among the conservative "Four Horsemen"—, James C. McReynolds, , and Pierce Butler—who had consistently struck down measures. retired on May 18, 1937, enabling Roosevelt's nomination of , confirmed August 4, 1937, by a 63-16 vote despite controversy over Black's admitted membership from September 1923 to 1925, which he joined for electoral support in Democratic politics and renounced before his 1926 Senate campaign; Black addressed the issue in a nationally broadcast speech on October 1, 1937, denying ongoing allegiance, but the revelation fueled opposition from anti-Klan senators and temporarily stalled pro- momentum until his vote helped sustain pending labor and commerce cases. Sutherland retired June 21, 1938, at age 76 due to health decline, replaced by Stanley F. on January 31, 1938; died November 16, 1939, at 73 from a , succeeded by on February 5, 1940; and McReynolds retired January 31, 1941, at 78 amid isolation and policy opposition, filled by on July 8, 1941. These departures, accelerated by the justices' ages (all over 70) and the implicit threat of legislative expansion, allowed to install committed New Dealers under 50, immediately tipping balances in reargued disputes over federal power and averting short-term vacancies that could have delayed rulings on wartime preparations. Hughes himself resigned effective July 1, 1941, at age 79, attributing the decision to failing eyesight and general frailty after 11 years as , a move that facilitated Harlan F. Stone's seamless elevation to the center seat on July 3, 1941, without opening a new associate position amid ongoing executive-judicial tensions and preserving institutional stability for imminent litigation.

Interactions with Other Branches

Relations with the Executive Branch

The Hughes Court originated under President , who nominated as on February 3, 1930, following the resignation of ; the confirmed Hughes by a 52-26 vote despite some opposition. Hoover's subsequent appointments of Associate Justices in 1930 and Benjamin Cardozo in 1932 shaped the Court's composition during the early era, enabling a gradual doctrinal shift from rigorous scrutiny of economic regulations toward in validating federal emergency responses to the 1929 crash. No major constitutional conflicts emerged between the Court and Hoover's administration, as the justices addressed state and federal measures without overt executive antagonism. Relations deteriorated sharply after Franklin D. 's inauguration in 1933, as the Court invalidated core components of his agenda, prompting Roosevelt to assail the justices for clinging to an antiquated "horse-and-buggy" interpretation of interstate commerce and federal authority. Seeking to neutralize judicial opposition, Roosevelt introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill on February 5, 1937, which proposed authorizing the president to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over age 70, potentially expanding the Court by six members to expedite caseloads and align rulings with executive priorities. Roosevelt escalated public pressure through his ninth fireside chat on March 9, 1937, portraying the plan as essential to revive the Court's role in fostering a "system of living law" unbound by rigid formalism, while implying the justices' advanced age and workload backlog justified intervention. Hughes countered these assertions diplomatically, co-signing a with Louis D. Brandeis on March 17, 1937, to the Senate Judiciary Committee that debunked backlog claims and warned additional justices would engender inefficiencies, including protracted conferences among more judges. Hughes' measured advocacy emphasized institutional autonomy and operational realities, framing enlargement as disruptive to collegial decision-making rather than a mere policy reform. The plan collapsed by July 22, 1937, amid bipartisan congressional resistance and public backlash, averting structural alteration and affirming the Court's insulation from executive overreach.

Relations with Congress and State Governments

The Hughes Court, particularly in its pre-1937 composition, asserted limits on congressional power by invalidating federal statutes that intruded upon state regulatory authority, emphasizing the Tenth Amendment's reservation of non-delegated powers to the states. This approach reflected a commitment to dual federalism, where Congress's enumerated powers—such as commerce and taxation—were construed narrowly to prevent displacement of state police powers over local economic activities. For example, the justices struck down key New Deal measures like the National Industrial Recovery Act's codes, viewing them as exceeding the commerce clause by regulating intrastate production and labor conditions traditionally managed by states. Similarly, the Agricultural Adjustment Act's processing taxes were deemed an invalid regulatory pretext under the taxing power, as they coercively influenced state-controlled agricultural practices. These decisions, often by narrow 5-4 margins, underscored the Court's role in preserving state autonomy against federal overreach amid Depression-era expansions of national authority. Congress responded to these invalidations with efforts to reframe within perceived constitutional bounds, including narrower bills that avoided broad delegations or direct intrusions into local spheres, such as revisions to farm relief acts following initial strikes. Instances of attempted overrides included joint resolutions, like the 1933 measure abrogating gold clauses in contracts to facilitate , which Congress defended as necessary for national economic stabilization but which the Court reviewed for consistency with federal limits and state contractual interests. While some such resolutions withstood challenge, they highlighted congressional frustration with judicial constraints, prompting debates over statutory design to evade Tenth Amendment objections. These interactions fostered tension, as lawmakers balanced policy ambitions against the Court's federalism-enforcing jurisprudence, occasionally incorporating emergency clauses to justify temporary federal incursions, though these proved insufficient against rigorous review. Relations with state governments benefited from the Court's pre-1937 restraint on expansion, allowing states greater latitude in economic without competing mandates. The justices frequently deferred to state experimentation in areas like labor standards and , provided they did not burden interstate , thereby upholding state sovereignty in intrastate matters. This stance contrasted with later deference post-1937 but reinforced by checking congressional attempts to state laws through expansive interpretations of powers. State officials, in turn, relied on the Court to defend against encroachments, as seen in challenges to programs like that blurred intrastate lines. Overall, these dynamics positioned the Hughes as a bulwark for divided powers, prompting to refine rather than broadly override judicial boundaries until the 1937 shifted the equilibrium.

Key Rulings

Economic Regulation and New Deal Challenges

In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, decided unanimously on May 27, 1935, the Court invalidated Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933, ruling that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated excessive legislative authority to the executive branch without an intelligible principle to guide rulemaking, and that the Act impermissibly extended federal commerce power to purely intrastate activities like local poultry slaughtering in New York City. The decision halted enforcement of industry codes under the NIRA, which had covered over 500 industries and 22 million workers by regulating wages, hours, and prices, forcing the Roosevelt administration to abandon the program and contributing to a temporary slowdown in New Deal economic recovery efforts as businesses adjusted to the absence of federal codes. The Court continued its scrutiny of federal economic interventions in v. Alton Railroad Co., a 5-4 decision on May 6, 1935, which struck down the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934 as exceeding 's commerce power and violating by compelling railroads to fund pensions for employees without a rational relation to interstate commerce, thereby infringing on property rights through mandatory wealth transfers. This ruling nullified pension benefits for approximately 1 million railroad workers and prompted to enact a revised Railroad Retirement Act in 1937, which survived subsequent challenges by framing pensions more directly as tied to labor stability in interstate commerce. In United States v. Butler, decided 6-3 on January 6, 1936, the Court invalidated the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, holding that its processing taxes to fund payments for reducing crop acreage invaded reserved state powers over agriculture and exceeded Congress's taxing and spending authority under the General Welfare Clause, as the mechanism coercively regulated production rather than merely providing relief. The AAA had reduced cotton production by 6 million acres in 1933-1934, boosting farm prices by an estimated 10-15% but at a cost of $500 million in taxpayer funds; its invalidation disrupted payments to 1.1 million farmers and led to a second AAA in 1938, which shifted emphasis to soil conservation subsidies to circumvent the ruling. These early decisions reflected the Court's adherence to precedents limiting federal overreach into economic spheres traditionally reserved to states or private contracts, often invoking substantive due process to protect property interests. However, following the 1936 election and amid threats of judicial reform, the Court shifted toward greater deference in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a 5-4 ruling on March 29, 1937, upholding Washington's minimum wage law for women and minors against due process challenges by applying a rational basis standard, overruling the stricter scrutiny of Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) and recognizing state police powers to address economic exploitation for public welfare. The law set a $14.50 weekly minimum for 48-hour workweeks, enabling recovery for cases like Elsie Parrish's $216.19 claim, and marked the onset of broader judicial tolerance for state economic regulations under rational basis review, influencing subsequent validations of New Deal labor and wage measures.

Civil Liberties and Criminal Justice

The Hughes Court advanced through selective incorporation of protections against the states via the , emphasizing while maintaining deference to state authority in non-capital matters and avoiding broad federal mandates on . This approach reflected a to amid skepticism toward expansive judicial intervention, prioritizing case-specific remedies over wholesale invalidation of state practices. In (1931), the Court struck down a state law authorizing injunctions against publishers of "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content, ruling that prior restraints on speech violate the First Amendment, as incorporated through the Fourteenth. Hughes, writing for the majority, distinguished permissible post-publication remedies like libel suits from preemptive , though he allowed narrow exceptions for threats like or to . This decision curtailed state efforts to suppress disreputable , establishing a foundational barrier against government suppression of the press. The cases exemplified the Court's intervention in to safeguard . In Powell v. Alabama (1932), involving nine black youths accused of raping two white women in , the Court reversed death sentences, holding that state courts must appoint competent in capital cases where defendants lack means or opportunity to secure representation, as the rushed trials denied fundamental fairness under the . Subsequent rulings, such as Norris v. Alabama (1935) and Patterson v. Alabama (1935), addressed systematic exclusion of blacks from grand and petit juries, mandating evidence-based review of such claims and expanding federal scrutiny of state convictions tainted by racial bias. These decisions prompted retrials and commutations by 1937, though persistent local prejudices limited their practical impact, highlighting the Court's preference for procedural safeguards over direct challenges to underlying racial animus in Southern justice systems. On racial equality, the Court took incremental steps without dismantling doctrines. In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Hughes's opinion required to either admit a qualified applicant to its whites-only or establish a separate facility of equal quality within the state, rejecting out-of-state tuition grants as inadequate under the "" principle from . This ruling pressured states to substantiate equality claims in but preserved 's constitutionality if facilities matched, drawing criticism for enabling evasion through token compliance rather than . The Court's restraint stemmed from respect for , declining to impose uniform national standards on state social policies amid widespread Southern resistance, though it laid groundwork for later challenges to inequality.

Federalism and Interstate Commerce

In Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936), the Hughes Court struck down key provisions of the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, which sought to regulate wages, hours, and prices in the coal industry through a federal tax penalty system. The 5-4 majority, led by Justice Sutherland, ruled that coal mining constituted local production rather than interstate commerce, rendering congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause an unconstitutional intrusion into state authority over intrastate activities. This decision preserved dual federalism by limiting federal power to actual transportation and sale across state lines, rejecting arguments that indirect effects on commerce justified regulation of production conditions, which the Court viewed as a pathway to obliterating the distinction between national and local spheres. The ruling had immediate practical effects during the , allowing states greater latitude to address industry-specific distress without ; for instance, it invalidated collective bargaining mandates that would have overridden state labor laws varying by jurisdiction, such as those in coal-producing states like and . Critics of expansive interpretations, including contemporaries like Senator , contended that such limits aligned with the Clause's original intent to facilitate trade without enabling a federal monopoly over economic policy. A pivotal shift occurred in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), where the Court, in another 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Hughes, upheld the National Labor Relations Act's protections against employer discrimination in . The opinion discarded the prior "direct effects" doctrine from cases like , permitting federal regulation of intrastate when they posed substantial threats to interstate , such as through potential strikes disrupting supply chains. This expansion effectively curtailed state sovereignty over union activities in integrated industries, as federal standards preempted divergent state regimes—evident in the Act's override of restrictive state right-to-work laws in southern hubs. These cases underscored tensions in , with reinforcing originalist boundaries to avert erosion of state powers and Jones & Laughlin prioritizing national amid Depression-era disruptions, though the latter drew scholarly critique for diminishing dual sovereignty by equating local disruptions with interstate burdens. States responded variably: pre-1937 rulings spurred localized relief efforts, like Pennsylvania's coal code alternatives, while post-1937 precedents accelerated federal dominance, reducing incentives for state innovation in labor and production regulation.

The Court-Packing Controversy

Origins in New Deal Invalidations

The confrontation between the Hughes Court and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal escalated through a sequence of 1935–1936 rulings that invalidated core federal economic interventions, enforcing constitutional constraints on legislative delegation and the scope of national authority. These decisions, often narrowly decided, reflected the majority's commitment to the non-delegation doctrine—requiring Congress to provide intelligible standards for executive rulemaking—and to Tenth Amendment federalism, limiting federal regulation to genuine interstate commerce rather than local production or intrastate activities. On January 7, 1935, in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, an 8–1 majority led by Hughes struck down a provision of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) empowering the President to ban interstate shipment of excess oil ("hot oil"), ruling it an invalid of legislative power without guiding principles, as had failed to articulate boundaries. This was amplified on May 27, 1935—"" for New Dealers—in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. , where the Court unanimously invalidated NIRA's industry codes for excessive to the executive and private groups, and by 5–4 held that regulating poultry processing exceeded the , as such local transactions lacked a direct effect on interstate trade sufficient to justify federal intrusion into state-reserved domains. The pattern continued into 1936, with on January 6 declaring the unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision; Justice Roberts's opinion rejected the use of processing taxes to fund farmer subsidies aimed at production control, deeming it an overreach of the spending power that coerced states into yielding sovereignty over agriculture, contravening the Tenth Amendment's reservation of non-delegated powers. Likewise, Carter v. Carter Coal Co. on May 18 invalidated the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act 5–4, with Justice emphasizing that Congress could not regulate local mining operations or labor conditions under the guise of regulation, as these remained intrastate matters beyond federal reach. The conservative bloc—Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, , and , frequently joined by Roberts—drove these outcomes, prioritizing structural constitutional safeguards against centralized power expansion amid Depression-era exigencies. These rulings elicited immediate political ire from Roosevelt's administration, which viewed them as judicial sabotage of recovery efforts; following Schechter, FDR at a derided the Court's interpretation as archaic, insisting on broader authority to address economic distress. Pro-New Deal media outlets amplified this narrative, depicting the justices as holdouts obstructing progressive reform, despite the decisions' fidelity to precedents like J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. on and historical limits on power. Such portrayals, often from outlets aligned with Democratic priorities, overlooked the rulings' role as checks on legislative-executive overreach, though contemporaneous polling indicated sustained public deference to the Court's institutional legitimacy.

FDR's Court-Packing Plan

On February 5, 1937, President transmitted a message to proposing the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which would authorize the addition of one new justice for every incumbent justice who reached age 70 and failed to retire within six months, up to a maximum of six additional appointments, potentially expanding the Court from nine to fifteen members. The measure targeted lower federal courts as well but centered on the , where six justices—, James McReynolds, , , , and (recently deceased)—were over 70, with the first four forming a conservative bloc that had voted to invalidate key programs such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and . Roosevelt framed the proposal as a to address judicial and inefficiency, arguing that aging justices contributed to in case processing and that younger appointees would assist in workload management without altering the Court's interpretive role. Critics, including legal scholars and bar associations, dismissed this rationale as a for diluting the Court's conservative majority, asserting that the true aim was to secure a favorable to expansive federal economic regulation amid ongoing invalidations of legislation. Constitutional objections emphasized threats to and under Article III, which vests "the judicial Power of the " in one without prescribing its size—leaving that to —but implying insulation from executive manipulation to prevent justices from ruling with an eye toward reappointment or political favor. Opponents contended that the plan would undermine the lifetime tenure intended to safeguard , effectively allowing the to stack the and erode on legislative and overreach, a view echoed by figures like Senator who warned it risked transforming the judiciary into a political appendage. The proposal sparked intense congressional debate, with initial Democratic support fracturing due to concerns over precedent and public backlash; the Judiciary Committee, after hearings, issued a report on June 7, 1937, rejecting the bill 10-8, describing it as "an invasion of the judicial power which our forefathers...set apart from the political interests of the and Legislative branches" and a shortsighted bid to alter constitutional outcomes rather than pursue legitimate reform. The committee's adverse recommendation, highlighting the plan's incompatibility with foundational principles of , effectively doomed the legislation, though the full formally voted it down on July 22, 1937.

The "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" and Immediate Aftermath

In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, decided on March 29, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld Washington state's minimum wage law for women and children by a 5-4 vote, with Owen joining the majority to overrule Morehead v. ex rel. Tipaldo (1936), in which he had previously voted to invalidate a similar statute on grounds under the . This decision marked a departure from Roberts' earlier stance, as the law imposed wage floors without requiring equivalent employer benefits, directly challenging Lochner-era precedents limiting state economic regulation. Roberts' shift has been interpreted in competing ways. Contemporary observers and some historians attribute it to pressure from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing proposal, announced February 5, 1937, which sought to add up to six justices to dilute conservative influence and avert further invalidations of measures; this view posits the ruling as a pragmatic capitulation to preserve the Court's institutional integrity amid threats of legislative expansion. Conversely, evidence from Court conference records indicates Roberts had privately favored upholding the Washington law during deliberations in December 1936—prior to Roosevelt's announcement—suggesting a principled evolution toward greater deference to legislative judgments on economic crises rather than external coercion. Conservative critics, including later analyses, decry the change as undermining by yielding to political intimidation, eroding the Court's role as a check on executive overreach. interpretations frame it as an overdue adaptation to empirical realities of the , recognizing states' rational basis for protective labor laws without Lochner-style scrutiny. A related ruling, Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40, decided April 26, 1937, unanimously enforced the Railway Labor Act's mandate for carriers to bargain collectively with certified employee representatives, affirming federal authority over labor disputes in interstate commerce and rejecting claims of Tenth Amendment limits. This bolstered the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) framework under the Wagner Act, signaling the Court's emerging tolerance for administrative enforcement of collective bargaining rights. The immediate aftermath saw the court-packing plan falter in by July 1937, amid bipartisan opposition and revelations of the Court's internal shifts. Associate Justice , a consistent conservative , announced his effective June 2, 1937, facilitating Roosevelt's first appointment and easing packing arguments by demonstrating voluntary turnover. Justice retired January 17, 1938, further altering the bench's composition without legislative intervention. These developments, coupled with Roberts' pivot, prompted accusations from conservatives of orchestrated capitulation, while proponents of expanded federal power hailed the Court's realignment as averting .

Judicial Philosophy

Commitment to Judicial Review and Constitutional Limits

The Hughes Court upheld the doctrine of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), affirming the judiciary's authority to invalidate federal and state actions exceeding constitutional bounds, thereby serving as a counterweight to legislative and executive expansion. This commitment manifested in rigorous scrutiny of governmental overreach, grounded in the Constitution's enumerated powers and structural limits, which constrained federal authority to explicitly delegated domains while preserving state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes exemplified this dedication through institutional leadership amid acute political challenges, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing initiative aimed at diluting judicial resistance to measures. In a letter dated March 22, 1937, to Senator , Hughes underscored the Court's operational efficiency—handling 80% of cases within three months—and its indispensable function in interpreting the as a check on other branches, arguing that proposed reforms would erode without addressing caseload realities. Hughes' stance reflected a broader Court ethos prioritizing doctrinal fidelity over expedient adaptation, rejecting encroachments that blurred or delegated legislative authority excessively. While inheriting precedents from the that safeguarded economic liberties against arbitrary regulation, the Hughes Court applied these protections with a focus on constitutional text and structure rather than expansive judicial policy intervention. This orientation emphasized original constitutional constraints—such as limited federal taxing and spending powers—over ideology, enabling the Court to enforce limits on centralization while permitting regulatory flexibility aligned with enumerated authorities, thus distinguishing its restraint from Lochner's more absolutist economic scrutiny.

Balancing Deference and Restraint

The Hughes Court grappled with the dual imperatives of deferring to legislative judgments in economic policymaking while exercising judicial restraint to enforce constitutional boundaries, particularly under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause. Prior to 1937, the justices often employed a formalist lens, subjecting New Deal initiatives to exacting scrutiny that invalidated broad regulatory schemes lacking clear ties to enumerated powers or infringing substantive economic rights. This approach manifested in rulings like A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (May 27, 1935), where the Court unanimously held the National Industrial Recovery Act's codes exceeded Congress's commerce authority and involved improper delegation, as the regulated local poultry slaughtering did not substantially affect interstate trade. Similarly, United States v. Butler (January 6, 1936) struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act's tax-and-subsidy mechanism by a 6-3 vote, deeming it a coercive intrusion on state agricultural regulation via the Spending Clause, beyond federal taxing power's scope. This pre-1937 stance reflected heightened review akin to protections for contractual freedom and property, prioritizing structural federalism over broad deference to crisis-driven legislation. Empirical patterns in these decisions underscored causal constraints on centralized intervention: by voiding overreaching statutes, the compelled narrower, constitutionally calibrated alternatives, as evidenced by Congress's subsequent revisions to commerce-based laws post-Schechter. Critics from realist traditions argue such restraint mitigated risks of administrative inefficiency from unchecked expansion, where vague delegations fostered bureaucratic discretion without accountability, contrasting with post-shift outcomes. The 1937 pivot, amid the court-packing threat, tilted toward pragmatism, embracing for economic measures if they bore a reasonable relation to legitimate ends, as articulated in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (March 29, 1937). Here, the Court upheld Washington's for women by a margin, with Justice joining the majority to overrule Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), signaling deference to powers amid Depression-era exigencies. This evolution—often termed the "switch in time"—has drawn scrutiny for resembling accommodation to executive pressure rather than unyielding principle, enabling validation of centralized programs like the National Labor Relations Act in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (April 12, 1937). Conservative analysts commend the initial for curbing legislative and preserving divided powers against aggrandizement, viewing it as authentic restraint faithful to enumerated limits. Progressive interpreters, conversely, hail the ensuing deference as pragmatic progress, aligning with electoral mandates and averting obstruction of remedial policies in economic distress. Such tensions highlight the Court's selective calibration: pre-crisis rigor checked potential overreach fostering inefficiency through unmoored authority, while post-crisis lenity prioritized legislative latitude, arguably at the expense of rigorous boundary enforcement.

Individual Justices' Influences

The "Four Horsemen"—Associate Justices , , Pierce Butler, and —profoundly shaped the Hughes Court's conservative wing through unwavering commitment to principles and , viewing expansive federal economic regulation as a threat to individual liberty and state sovereignty. Their jurisprudence, informed by pre-New Deal economic orthodoxy, emphasized judicial protection of property rights against legislative overreach, forming a reliable bloc that resisted centralization efforts. Justice advanced progressive constitutionalism via targeted concurrences and dissents, leveraging detailed empirical appendices and critiques of corporate bigness to plant seeds for future doctrinal shifts without compromising his principled opposition to majority views. This approach influenced the Court's liberal faction by prioritizing factual scrutiny over abstract deference, fostering a data-driven counter to conservative formalism. Chief Justice exerted influence through adept consensus-building, mediating between ideological extremes to craft narrower opinions and preserve institutional unity amid internal divisions. His strategic assignments and occasional cross-ideological alliances tempered the Court's polarization, promoting pragmatic restraint over rigid bloc voting. Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts functioned as a crucial , his positions often determining outcomes in economic cases and culminating in a 1937 pivot that aligned with liberal justices on regulatory deference following external political pressures. This flexibility amplified his impact on the Court's philosophical evolution, bridging conservative skepticism with emerging acceptance of administrative governance. Harlan Fiske Stone, part of the liberal "Three Musketeers" with Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo, provided intellectual heft to dissents advocating judicial humility in economic matters; his 1941 elevation to marked a transitional influence, easing the shift toward a bench more accommodating of federal power under Roosevelt's appointees.

Achievements and Criticisms

Protections of Property Rights and

The Hughes Court safeguarded by strictly interpreting Congress's power to exclude predominantly intrastate activities, thereby preserving regulatory over economies. In A.L.A. Schechter Corp. v. (May 27, 1935), the unanimous Court invalidated Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which authorized industry codes regulating wages, hours, and prices for activities like poultry slaughtering deemed in nature. This ruling emphasized that federal overreach into intrastate matters violated the constitutional structure reserving such domains to , prompting the administration to narrow subsequent statutes like the National Labor Relations Act to focus on interstate transport effects. Similarly, Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (May 18, 1936) struck down the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act's price and labor provisions by a 5-4 vote, as they regulated mining operations with minimal interstate ties, reinforcing barriers against federal encroachment on powers. These federalism decisions also curbed excessive delegation of legislative authority, preventing bureaucratic agencies from wielding unchecked rulemaking that could undermine representative governance. The Schechter opinion, authored by Chief Justice Hughes, deemed the Act's broad grant to the President an invalid surrender of Congress's Article I responsibilities, requiring future laws to provide intelligible standards for administrative action. United States v. Butler (January 6, 1936) further protected state prerogatives by invalidating the Agricultural Adjustment Act's processing taxes funding crop reduction payments, ruling 6-3 that such federal spending conditioned on state-level production controls exceeded taxing and spending powers under Article I, Section 8, as it coercively regulated intrastate agriculture. Collectively, the Court invalidated or necessitated revisions to at least four major New Deal statutes—NIRA, AAA, Guffey Coal Act, and related mortgage relief elements—compelling legislators to draft with constitutional precision and averting indefinite administrative expansion. On rights, the Court upheld contractual obligations and limits against emergency dilutions, maintaining bulwarks for private economic ordering amid pressures. In Sterling v. Constantin (May 2, 1932), the unanimous decision protected oil producers' rights to challenge governor-declared proration orders via federal injunctions, affirming that executive emergencies could not override of arbitrary deprivations under the . Regarding the Contracts Clause, while Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934) permitted Minnesota's temporary mortgage moratorium as a reasonable emergency measure, subsequent rulings like W.B. Worthen Co. v. Thomas (June 4, 1934) invalidated Arkansas's retroactive exemption of insurance garnishment remedies, with Hughes joining the 5-4 majority to stress that substantive impairments beyond public necessity violated I, 10 protections for bargained-for expectations. These outcomes enforced rule-of-law constraints, ensuring safeguards compelled targeted rather than sweeping interventions.

Criticisms of Initial Resistance to Centralization

Critics of the Hughes Court, particularly proponents of expansive federal intervention under the New Deal, accused it of ideological obstructionism that impeded economic recovery from the Great Depression. In the wake of decisions invalidating key programs, such as Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States on May 27, 1935, which struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) for exceeding Congress's commerce power, President Franklin D. Roosevelt lambasted the justices for adhering to a "horse-and-buggy" definition of interstate commerce unfit for contemporary economic exigencies. Similar invalidations, including United States v. Butler on January 6, 1936, which nullified the Agricultural Adjustment Act's processing taxes as an unconstitutional invasion of state powers, fueled narratives that the Court's strict constructionism prioritized antiquated federalism over urgent national coordination, thereby prolonging suffering by dismantling mechanisms intended to stabilize prices, wages, and production. Subsequent economic analyses, however, challenge these accusations by demonstrating that the invalidated policies themselves distorted markets and extended the Depression's duration. Peer-reviewed modeling indicates that NIRA's industry codes, which cartelized sectors and enforced above-market wages and prices, reduced aggregate hours worked by approximately 20-27% below trend levels from 1933 to 1935, accounting for over half of the observed output shortfall and contributing to a prolongation of the crisis by roughly five to seven years relative to a counterfactual without such interventions. These distortions, rooted in reduced and distorted rather than mere federal inaction, suggest the Court's resistance preserved constitutional boundaries against measures that causally exacerbated unemployment— which averaged 17.2% through the 1930s despite expansions—by fostering dependency and hindering private sector recovery. The Court's partial shift toward deference after March 1937, exemplified by upholds of the National Labor Relations Act in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. and minimum wage laws in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, averted immediate confrontation but arguably entrenched precedents for broad interpretations that facilitated unchecked centralization. While this moderated the Court's earlier rigor and aligned with stabilizing some programs amid fiscal pressures, it risked normalizing expansive executive and legislative overreach, potentially undermining long-term incentives for innovation and state-level experimentation by subordinating first-principles limits on federal authority to political expediency.

Evaluations of Civil Rights Advances and Shortcomings

The Hughes Court demonstrated a mixed record on civil rights, advancing procedural protections against state overreach in and speech while largely preserving the framework of in the . In Stromberg v. California (1931), the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the display of red flags as symbols of opposition to organized , marking the first application of the First Amendment's free speech protections to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's and establishing limits on vague statutes that could suppress political expression. Similarly, Near v. Minnesota (1931) struck down prior restraints on newspapers accusing officials of malfeasance, reinforcing press freedoms against state censorship under the same incorporation doctrine. On in criminal proceedings, (1932) held that indigent defendants in capital cases require effective legal counsel to satisfy Fourteenth Amendment , arising from the racially charged trials where nine Black youths faced hasty convictions without adequate representation; this decision laid groundwork for broader right-to-counsel standards, though it did not immediately secure acquittals. Subsequent rulings amplified this scrutiny, including (1936), which barred coerced confessions extracted through torture from Black defendants, and Chambers v. Florida (1940), invalidating convictions based on involuntary statements, contributing to a measurable increase in reversals of state criminal convictions on federal constitutional grounds during the era. Despite these procedural gains, the Court fell short in dismantling Jim Crow segregation, upholding discriminatory practices that perpetuated racial inequality. In Grovey v. Townsend (1935), a 5-4 decision affirmed Texas's exclusion of Black voters from Democratic primaries as a private party action beyond state regulation, effectively endorsing white primaries that disenfranchised Southern Blacks until overruled post-Hughes. Cases like Nixon v. Condon (1932) and Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938) struck down specific statutory barriers to Black access in primaries and legal education, respectively, requiring "separate but equal" compliance under Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), yet these rulings chipped only marginally at Plessy's edifice without confronting its core constitutionality or broader segregation regimes. Scholars note this pattern reflected the justices' reluctance to override entrenched Southern customs amid political pressures, prioritizing federalism over aggressive equality enforcement and leaving substantive civil rights reforms to future Courts.

Legacy

Impact on American Constitutional Law

The Hughes Court's expansion of Congress's commerce power, particularly in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (301 U.S. 1, 1937), marked a doctrinal shift that facilitated subsequent federal regulatory authority over and economic activities affecting interstate , laying groundwork for the post-World War II by broadening the definition of beyond direct transportation to include and production with indirect effects. This precedent endured through the Stone and Vinson Courts, influencing expansive interpretations in cases like (317 U.S. 111, 1942), which further entrenched federal oversight of intrastate activities under the , thereby enabling sustained growth in administrative agencies and social welfare programs without frequent invalidation. In economic substantive due process, the Court's application of in Nebbia v. (291 U.S. 502, 1934) diminished Lochner-era protections against and regulations, requiring only that such measures bear a rational relation to a legitimate state interest rather than for interference with contractual freedoms. This deferential standard persisted post-1941, becoming the default for reviewing economic legislation and underpinning the judiciary's general acquiescence to New Deal-inspired expansions of state power, though it preserved avenues for heightened review in non-economic contexts. The Hughes Court's enforcement of the in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495, 1935) and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U.S. 388, 1935) invalidated broad legislative delegations lacking intelligible principles, but subsequent erosion after 1937—exemplified by upholding more flexible standards in later cases—diminished its rigor, allowing administrative expansions during without equivalent checks. These limits were invoked sporadically in wartime contexts, as in Hughes's emphasis on Congress's authority to wage "successfully" via the , which justified delegations for mobilization but highlighted enduring tensions between executive flexibility and legislative primacy in crises. Overall, the Court's precedents reinforced judicial review's institutional resilience amid political pressures, yet facilitated a framework where and powers enabled centralized authority while leaving doctrinal footholds for later retrenchments against overreach.

Historical Reassessments and Debates

Scholars have debated the causes of the Court's doctrinal shift in 1937, particularly whether the so-called "switch in time that nine"—upholding key measures like the National Labor Relations Act in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.—resulted from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing proposal or from internal jurisprudential evolution. Revisionist analyses, drawing on voting patterns and conference notes, argue against the traditional narrative of political intimidation, positing instead that Justices and had already begun aligning with liberal outcomes in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), decided before Roosevelt's February 5 announcement but announced after. These views challenge accounts in mainstream histories that emphasize external pressure, suggesting the Court's pre-1937 invalidations of programs like the reflected principled adherence to limits rather than obstructionism. Conservative reassessments portray the Hughes Court's early resistance to centralization as a bulwark against executive overreach and quasi-socialist policies, crediting decisions like (1936) with preserving constitutional separations of power amid economic desperation. Empirical critiques highlight that prolonged invalidations did not empirically worsen Depression-era outcomes, as federal spending rose from 5.9% of 1929 GDP in 1933 to 11% by 1939 without commensurate recovery until wartime mobilization, questioning narratives that frame the Court as delaying necessary intervention. Right-leaning scholars defend this stance as foresight against authoritarian precedents, contrasting it with progressive framings that downplay the 's constitutional overextensions and long-term fiscal burdens. On civil rights, recent scholarship reassesses the Hughes Court as initiating erosion of 's separate-but-equal doctrine through cases like Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. (1938), which mandated equal graduate facilities for Black students, and Herndon v. Lowry (1937), overturning a conviction of a Black Communist organizer on free speech grounds. These rulings, often overshadowed by economic controversies, reflect a commitment to equal protection and First Amendment principles, predating the Warren Court's more sweeping interventions. Conservative evaluations praise this incrementalism for advancing liberties without judicial fiat, while acknowledging shortcomings in areas like restrictive covenants, yet prioritizing the Court's restraint against FDR's consolidation of power. Debates persist on whether such advances stemmed from Hughes's or broader institutional pressures, with data on case outcomes underscoring a pattern of protecting dissent amid rising radicalism.

References

  1. [1]
    The Hughes Court - Ballotpedia
    The Hughes Court lasted from February 1930 until June 1941, during the presidencies of Herbert Hoover (R) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (D).
  2. [2]
    History of the Court: The Hughes Court, 1930-1941
    Then all nine Justices vetoed a law to relieve farm debtors, and killed the National Recovery Administration; FDR denounced their “horse-and-buggy” definition ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  3. [3]
    Charles Evans Hughes Court (1930-1941)
    Learn about the history of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes Court (1930-1941), including the Justices who served on the Court ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  4. [4]
    Previous Chief Justices: William Howard Taft, 1921-1930
    Taft retired from the Court on February 3, 1930, after serving eight years as Chief Justice. He died on March 8, 1930, at the age of seventy-two.
  5. [5]
    Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes | Justia U.S. Supreme Court ...
    Read about how U.S. Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes got to the Court, including his education, career, and confirmation process.
  6. [6]
    Charles E. Hughes | Oyez
    Charles Evans Hughes was born and raised in New York. He was educated by his parents but matriculated at Madison College (now Colgate) when he was fourteen.
  7. [7]
    Gov. Charles Evans Hughes - National Governors Association
    Charles E. Hughes, the thirty-ninth governor of New York, was born in Glens Falls, New York on April 11, 1862.
  8. [8]
    Previous Chief Justices: Charles Evans Hughes, 1930-1941
    Charles Evans Hughes was born in Glens Falls, New York, on April 11, 1862. He was graduated in 1881 from Brown University and received a law degree from ...
  9. [9]
    Charles Evans Hughes - People - Department History
    Charles Evans Hughes served as Secretary of State from March 5, 1921, to March 5, 1925, during the administration of President Warren Harding.
  10. [10]
    Justices 1789 to Present - Supreme Court
    Name, State App't From, Appointed by President, Judicial Oath Taken, Date Service Terminated. Jay, John, New York, Washington, (a) October 19, 1789 ...
  11. [11]
    The Justice Who Was of Two Minds - The Pennsylvania Gazette
    Nov 1, 2009 · Appointed to the Supreme Court for his crusading prosecution of the Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s, Owen Roberts went from New Deal obstructionist to enabler.Missing: motivation | Show results with:motivation
  12. [12]
    Hugo Black Lobby Investigation - Senate.gov
    Upon graduation from the University of Alabama Law School, Black became a police court judge and then a noted labor lawyer. In 1923, when the Ku Klux Klan ...
  13. [13]
    Justice Hugo L. Black, His Chambers Staff, and the Ku Klux Klan ...
    Apr 27, 2021 · Black, His Chambers Staff, and the Ku Klux Klan Controversy of 1937 ... Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, race and religion have played ...
  14. [14]
    The remarkable career of Charles Evans Hughes | Constitution Center
    Apr 11, 2024 · On the anniversary of his birthday, Constitution Daily looks back at the career of Charles Evans Hughes, former Chief Justice and a man who ...
  15. [15]
    https://supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
  16. [16]
    HERBERT HOOVER AND THE SUPREME COURT - Hoover Heads
    Oct 7, 2020 · Herbert Hoover's three appointees to the Court facilitated the transition of the Court from judicial activism to judicial restraint in economic issues.
  17. [17]
    How FDR lost his brief war on the Supreme Court | Constitution Center
    Feb 5, 2024 · There were four Justices –nicknamed the “Four Horsemen”: ,” Justices George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, and Willis Van Devanter ...
  18. [18]
    When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed With the Supreme Court—and Lost
    Wheeler, Charles Evans Hughes blew gaping holes in the president's claim that the court was behind in its schedule and that additional justices would ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] The Jurisprudence of the Hughes Court: The Recent Literature
    The literature on the Supreme Court under the Chief Justiceship of. Charles Evans Hughes and the tumultuous events surrounding the struggle.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The New Deal, 1931-1940
    Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1,. 9-10 (1941), that Congress could delegate to the Supreme Court authority to adopt proce- dural rules with virtually no legislative ...
  21. [21]
    Chief Justice Hughes | - Oxford Academic - Oxford University Press
    He intended the decisions overturning these laws in 1935–36 to serve as lessons in the proper structure of the administrative state. New Deal lawyers got the ...3 Chief Justice Hughes · The New Deal's Corporatist... · Hughes Agonistes
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Mr. Justice Cardozo and the New Deal: An Appraisal
    In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice Hughes found this delegation of power to the President invalid and further indicated, in sweeping language, the ...
  23. [23]
    Federalism Rebalancing and the Roberts Court - Harvard Law Review
    Mar 10, 2025 · The Hughes Court therefore balanced its state-strengthening holdings 42 with federal-strengthening holdings, 43 providing a clear example of ...I. Past Federalism... · A. Marshall Court... · C. Hughes Court (1930--1941)
  24. [24]
    [PDF] THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HUGHES COURT
    is likewise possible to attribute the Court's invalidation of some New Deal legislation, particularly the National Industrial Recovery Act, to hasty and.
  25. [25]
    Section C: Crisis - The Hughes Court
    When the Court directed its attention to programs that were perhaps provoked by the economic crisis but were intended to be part of that New Deal – and new role ...I. Carter V. Carter Coal... · Iv. Jones & Laughlin · Footnotes
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Telling the Story of the Hughes Court
    Roberts appears to have been significantly less enthused about the federal spending power than Hughes was, even at the time Roberts wrote broadly about it in ...
  27. [27]
    A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States | Oyez
    A case in which the Court held that the legislative branch cannot delegate to the President the authority to regulate industries without also providing ...Missing: NIRA | Show results with:NIRA
  28. [28]
    A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States | 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
    The delegation of legislative power sought to be made to the President by § 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, is unconstitutional.Missing: NIRA | Show results with:NIRA
  29. [29]
    On this day, Supreme Court invalidates key FDR program
    May 27, 2022 · The Court's decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, or NIRA, one of ...
  30. [30]
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD et al. v. ALTON R. CO. et al.
    There this court upheld the Carmack Amendment (49 USCA § 20), which made the initial carrier liable to the consignor for loss of goods contracted to be ...
  31. [31]
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD et al. v. ALTON ... - Ballotpedia
    ALTON RAILROAD CO. ... The case was argued before the court on March 13, 1935. In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] The Railroad Retirement Acts - St. John's Law Scholarship Repository
    ing and dissenting opinions in Railroad Retirement Board et al v. Alton R. R.. Co. et al., 295 U. S. 330, 55 Sup. Ct. 758 (1935). "295 U. S. 330, 55 Sup. Ct ...Missing: decision | Show results with:decision
  33. [33]
    United States v. Butler | Oyez
    The Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, an area reserved to the states by ...
  34. [34]
    United States v. Butler | 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
    The spending power does not allow Congress to regulate matters clearly reserved to the states by using taxation as a pretext for indirect control.
  35. [35]
    United States v. Butler - Teaching American History
    In United States v. Butler, the court invalidated the AAA's tax on processors, deeming it unconstitutional because it was not for "general welfare".
  36. [36]
    West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish - Oyez
    Under Washington state law, the Industrial Welfare Committee and Supervisor of Women in Industry set a minimum wage of $14.50 for each work week of 48 hours ...
  37. [37]
    West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish - The National Constitution Center
    Elsie Parrish, a female employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, sued her employer under a Washington state law regulating the minimum wage for female ...
  38. [38]
    West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) - Quimbee
    The State of Washington passed a law that regulated the minimum wages paid to female and minor employees. Elsie Parrish (plaintiff) was employed as a maid at a ...
  39. [39]
    Near v. Minnesota | 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
    Near v. Minnesota: Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, ...Missing: Powell | Show results with:Powell
  40. [40]
    Powell v. Alabama | 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
    The petitioners, hereinafter referred to as defendants, are negroes charged with the crime of rape, committed upon the persons of two white girls.
  41. [41]
    Near v. Minnesota | Teaching American History
    The decision of the Court in this case declares Minnesota and every other state powerless to restrain by injunction the business of publishing and circulating ...
  42. [42]
    POWELL et al. v. STATE OF ALABAMA. PATTERSON v. SAME ...
    The petitioners, hereinafter referred to as defendants, are negroes charged with the crime of rape, committed upon the persons of two white girls.
  43. [43]
    The Scottsboro Boys | National Museum of African American History ...
    The Supreme Court demanded a retrial on the grounds that the young men did not have adequate legal representation. A series of retrials and reconvictions ...
  44. [44]
    Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada | 305 U.S. 337 (1938)
    CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Lloyd Gaines, a negro, was refused admission to the School of Law at the State University of ...
  45. [45]
    STATE OF MISSOURI et rel. GAINES v. CANADA et al.
    Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the court. 1. Petitioner Lloyd Gaines, a negro, was refused admission to the School of Law of the State University ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but ...
    Because of the Court's failure to vindicate their legal rights, black Americans were barred from southern voting booths, relegated to inferior public schools ...Missing: Near | Show results with:Near
  47. [47]
    Carter v. Carter Coal Co. | 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
    The court ruled the coal act's tax was a penalty, not a tax, and that Congress lacked power to control pre-commerce coal production conditions.
  48. [48]
    Carter v. Carter Coal Company | Oyez
    The Court ruled that "commerce" is plainly distinct from "production." Employing workers, setting wages and working hours, and mining coal were found to be part ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). - Loc
    The court ruled the coal tax was a penalty, not a tax, and that Congress lacked power to control pre-production labor conditions.
  50. [50]
    Carter v. Carter Coal Co | Research Starters - EBSCO
    Significance: The Supreme Court overturned a 1935 coal act that set up local boards to regulate coal prices and help workers negotiate wages and hours, holding ...<|separator|>
  51. [51]
    Carter v. Carter Coal Company - Ballotpedia
    The case was decided on May 18, 1936. Decision. The United States Supreme Court held 5-4 to affirm in part and reverse in part the decisions ...
  52. [52]
    NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. | 301 U.S. 1 (1937)
    NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.: Congress has the authority to regulate intrastate activities that significantly affect interstate commerce, ...Missing: federalism implications
  53. [53]
    National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
    The case involved the NLRB charging Jones & Laughlin for union discrimination. The court upheld the NLRA, stating companies can't discriminate for unionizing, ...Missing: federalism | Show results with:federalism
  54. [54]
    National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel ...
    The case upheld federal power over labor relations, ended the "direct-indirect" distinction, and shifted to "cooperative federalism", expanding federal ...Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
  55. [55]
    NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
    Dual Federalism and the Commerce Clause. The year 1937 was unquestionably a crucial turning point in American constitutional law especially with respect to the ...
  56. [56]
    Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan | 293 U.S. 388 (1935)
    The case established that delegating legislative powers to the executive branch requires Congress to provide policy standards and guidance.
  57. [57]
    The Hughes Court, the Great Depression, and the Historians - jstor
    Supreme Court Crisis (New York, 1937), 44. 7- Pusey, Charles Evans Hughes, 2 ... of state governments to deal with them without precipitating con.
  58. [58]
    The Public Debate Over Franklin D. Roosevelt's Court-packing Plan ...
    In 1935 and 1936, the Court, by a slim majority of justices, struck down a number of major pieces of New Deal legislation. The line of jurisprudence that ...
  59. [59]
    FDR announces “court-packing” plan | February 5, 1937 - History.com
    Feb 9, 2010 · On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient.
  60. [60]
    FDR's "Court-Packing" Plan - Federal Judicial Center |
    Roosevelt proposed a bill to expand the membership of the Supreme Court. The law would have added one justice to the Court for each justice over the age of 70, ...
  61. [61]
    Revisiting the Logic of Court Packing – John O. McGinnis
    Nov 29, 2022 · Roosevelt disingenuously justified the bill as an effort to make the Court more efficient by giving it more personnel. This rationale was seen ...
  62. [62]
    Court-packing is a terrible idea. FDR proved it.
    Jul 7, 2022 · In pushing to expand the Supreme Court, FDR treated the Court as just another political chamber he could manipulate to enact his agenda.
  63. [63]
    FDR & The Court Packing Controversy: Full Script
    FDR & The Court Packing Controversy documents President's Roosevelt attempt to expand the Supreme Court in the face of opposition to New Deal initiatives: ...Missing: conflicts | Show results with:conflicts
  64. [64]
    West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish | 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
    ... Roberts destroyed his papers after leaving the Court. His decision to disregard his personal political views has been called the "switch in time that saved nine ...
  65. [65]
    DID A SWITCH IN TIME SAVE NINE? 1 - Oxford Academic
    Did. Supreme Court Justice Roberts abruptly switch votes in 1937 to avert a show- down with Roosevelt? Scholars disagree vigorously about whether Roberts's.
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Cal Tinney's 1937 Quip, “A Switch in Time'll Save Nine”
    Justice Roberts had made, it was said, “a switch in time that saved nine.” He had switched, in other words, to upholding progressive laws, a move that ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Did a Switch in Time Save Nine? - Emory Law Scholarly Commons
    lar, but contested, account of the “switch in time that saved nine” begins with a Court of four stalwart conservatives who battled with three liberal.
  68. [68]
    42. The Switch in Time That Saved Nine - by Steve Vladeck
    Aug 28, 2023 · But it is clear from the papers of other justices that Roberts initially voted to uphold Washington's law at the Court's Conference after oral ...
  69. [69]
    Virginian Railway Co. v. Railway Employees | 300 U.S. 515 (1937)
    The Railway Labor Act requires carriers to treat with certified employee representatives, but does not compel agreement, and the duty is enforceable by ...
  70. [70]
    VIRGINIAN RY. CO. v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40 et al.
    Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. 1. This case presents questions as to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Railway Labor ...
  71. [71]
    Court Change; A Justice Retires - The New York Times
    ... retiring jurist. Justice Van Devanter's retirement- to take effect June 2-gave a dramatic turn to the fifteen-week debate over President Roosevelt's ...
  72. [72]
    Justice George Sutherland | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    Sutherland retired from the Supreme Court on January 17, 1938 and was replaced by Justice Stanley Forman Reed. He died on July 18, 1942 in Stockbridge, ...
  73. [73]
    The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court
    The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's ...
  74. [74]
    https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1850&context=articles
  75. [75]
    [PDF] The Court That Challenged the New Deal (1930-1936)
    Jan 1, 1984 · This was the period in which the. Hughes Court's economic conservatives challenged the New Deal. ... judicial restraint was Snyder v.
  76. [76]
    Was There a “Switch in Time”? (Chapter 13) - The Hughes Court
    The chapter examines in detail the evidence for and against the proposition that the Court's decisions in 1937 were a dramatic “switch in time that saved ...Missing: scrutiny pre-<|control11|><|separator|>
  77. [77]
    Why Liberals and Conservatives Flipped on Judicial Restraint
    The increasing use of judicial review to protect and promote the constitutional and policy values of the dominant party leads to repeated charges of judicial ...<|separator|>
  78. [78]
    https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&context=mlr
  79. [79]
    https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-448
  80. [80]
    [PDF] Louis D. Brandeis as a Transitional Figure in Constitutional Law
    Nov 1, 2013 · Nevertheless, Brandeis was responsible for guiding the Progressive wing of the Court away from the more consistently statist, deferential-to- ...<|separator|>
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Brandeis: The Legacy of a Justice
    Feb 16, 2017 · Court opinions have cited forty-seven Brandeis concurrences or dissents. Ta- ble 1 shows the ten most cited Brandeis discretionary opinions.
  82. [82]
    Charles Evans Hughes - Columbia 250
    Known as a master of building consensus, the two-time Supreme Court justice Charles Evans Hughes was lauded for his brilliant legal mind. As chief justice ...
  83. [83]
    "Switching Time and Other Thought Experiments: The Hughes Court ...
    Between early 1934 and early 1935, however, the Court issued three thunderbolt decisions, all by five-to-four votes on the liberal side and with either Hughes ...Missing: administrative | Show results with:administrative
  84. [84]
    [PDF] harlan fiske stone, judicial review, and administratwe regulation of the
    By all accounts, Stone's elevation to ChiefJustice in 1941 should have symbolized the final triumph of American Liberalism on a heretofore conservative bench.Missing: influence | Show results with:influence
  85. [85]
    New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression
    New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis. Harold L. Cole and; Lee E. Ohanian. Harold L. Cole. University of ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] How FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
    Throughout the New. Deal era, the median annual unemploy- ment rate was 17.2 percent. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent.Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
  87. [87]
    [PDF] 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024)
    Jun 28, 2024 · Nothing in the New Deal era or before it thus resem- bled the deference rule the Court would begin applying decades later to all varieties of ...
  88. [88]
    Stromberg v. California | 283 U.S. 359 (1931)
    The case established that the First Amendment protects symbolic speech, like flying red flags, and a state cannot prevent it as a political statement.
  89. [89]
    Stromberg v. California (1931) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
    Jan 1, 2009 · The first section of the California statute was, therefore, repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.
  90. [90]
    Powell v. Alabama | Oyez
    The Court held that the trials denied due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense.
  91. [91]
    [PDF] THE CANON OF RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW
    Mar 9, 2018 · 111 It appears that this inconsistency reflects enduring disagreements on the Court regarding the appropriate approach to rational basis review.Missing: Hughes | Show results with:Hughes
  92. [92]
    [PDF] ARTICLE THE EROSION OF THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE ...
    99 This section traces the Court's retreat from meaningful nondelegation constraints, analyzing both the doctrinal mechanisms and institutional forces that.
  93. [93]
    THE POWER TO WAGE WAR SUCCESSFULLY
    For Hughes, that the power to wage war meant the power to do so successfully implied that in wartime, constitutional powers—including delegations of authority ...Missing: enumerated | Show results with:enumerated
  94. [94]
    [PDF] Charles Evans Hughes and the Power to Wage War Successfully
    These were radical expansions of federal government authority based on Congress's war powers.
  95. [95]
    [PDF] DID A SWITCH IN TIME SAVE NINE? 1 - Daniel E. Ho
    Dec 1, 2017 · Second, Hughes and Roberts retain their critical roles as swing voters in the 1936 and 1937 terms, casting votes for the majority in roughly 90 ...
  96. [96]
    [PDF] Echoes of the Switch in Time in the Chief Justice's Jurisprudence
    Jun 6, 2023 · Some argue Justice Owen Roberts did not switch his vote because of the Court-packing plan, since he reached his decision in Parrish before ...
  97. [97]
    The Impact of New Deal Spending and Lending During the Great ...
    Many new programs involved large increases in funding; real federal outlays increased from 5.9 percent of 1929 real GDP in 1933 to nearly 11 percent by 1939.
  98. [98]
    [PDF] The Hughes Court and Radical Political Dissent - The Reading Room
    Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that. 43. Id. 13. Tushnet: The Hughes Court and Radical Political ...