A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued May 2–3, 1935 Decided May 27, 1935 |
|
| Full case name | A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States |
| Citations | 295 U.S. 495 (more)
55 S. Ct. 837; 79 L. Ed. 1570; 1935 U.S. LEXIS 1088; 1935 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 55,072; 2 Ohio Op. 493; 97 A.L.R. 947
|
| Prior history | Defendants convicted, United States v. Schechter, 8 F.Supp. 136 (E.D.N.Y. 1934); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 76 F.2d 617 (2d Cir. 1935); cert. granted, 295 U.S. 723 (1935) |
| Holding | |
| Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Executive, and was not a valid exercise of congressional Commerce Clause power. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Hughes, joined by Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Roberts |
| Concurrence | Cardozo, joined by Stone |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I; U.S. Const. amend. X; 15 U.S.C. § 703 (1933) (National Industrial Recovery Act § 3) | |
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. This case looked at rules for the poultry industry. It decided that parts of a law called the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) were against the Constitution.
The NIRA was a big part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan, known as the New Deal. The Court ruled that Congress had given too much of its law-making power to the President. It also said Congress had gone too far in using its power to regulate trade between states. This case is often called the "Sick Chicken Case."
Contents
The "Sick Chicken" Story
Rules for Businesses During the New Deal
The rules in question came from the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933. This law was created during the Great Depression to help the economy. It allowed different industries to create "codes of fair competition." These codes set rules for things like prices, wages, and how many hours people could work.
The Schechter Poultry Business
The Schechter brothers ran a poultry business in New York. They were accused of breaking some of these new rules. For example, they were said to have sold unhealthy chickens. This is why the case got its famous nickname, "the sick chicken case."
The "Straight Killing" Rule
One interesting rule they were accused of breaking was called "straight killing." This rule meant that customers could not choose the chickens they wanted to buy. Instead, they had to reach into the coop and take the first chicken they touched. This rule caused some laughter in court!
Why the Case Was Important
The Schechter case was one of several rulings that challenged President Roosevelt's New Deal laws. These laws aimed to fix the economy. The Supreme Court at the time was worried about the government getting too involved in local businesses. Because of these rulings, President Roosevelt later tried to change the number of judges on the Supreme Court.
The Court's Decision
Limits on Government Power
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the decision for the Court. All the judges agreed. They said that the industrial "codes of fair competition" from the NIRA were unconstitutional.
The Court explained two main reasons:
- Separation of Powers: The Constitution divides government power into three branches: legislative (Congress makes laws), executive (President carries out laws), and judicial (courts interpret laws). The Court said the NIRA gave too much law-making power to the President, which broke this important rule.
- Commerce Clause: The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade between states (interstate commerce). The Court decided that the Schechter brothers' business, which sold chickens only within New York, did not have a direct effect on interstate trade. Therefore, Congress could not regulate it.
Why This Decision Mattered
The Court wanted to make sure that Congress didn't have unlimited power. If Congress could regulate a small local business like Schechter's, it might be able to control almost anything. This would leave very little power for the states.
Justice Benjamin Cardozo agreed with the decision. He felt that Schechter's business was simply too small to be considered part of interstate commerce.
Later Changes in Thinking
Later, the Supreme Court changed its view on how much power Congress had over interstate commerce. After some disagreements with President Roosevelt, the Court began to allow Congress more power in this area. Cases like NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937) showed this shift.
However, in more recent times, cases like United States v. Lopez (1995) have shown the Court might be looking again at limiting Congress's power. The Schechter case is still cited today as a precedent for how much power the government can have.
What It Meant for the Country
This decision had a big impact. Justice Louis Brandeis told President Roosevelt's aides, "This is the end of this business of centralization." He meant that the government shouldn't try to control everything from Washington D.C.
President Roosevelt himself disagreed with the decision. He felt it was based on old ideas about the Commerce Clause. After the ruling, newspapers reported that many cases involving NIRA rule violations were dropped.
See Also
- National Industrial Recovery Act
- New Deal
- Supreme Court of the United States
