Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States

Definition

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1935 that declared certain provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional, specifically those that regulated the poultry industry. This case is significant because it marked a major setback for the New Deal's efforts to combat the Great Depression and redefined the limits of federal authority in regulating local business practices.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Schechter Poultry Corp., stating that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause by trying to regulate intrastate commerce.
2. The case specifically addressed the practice of 'live poultry' selling and its regulation under NIRA, which aimed to stabilize prices and wages in the poultry industry.
3. The decision effectively nullified key parts of NIRA, contributing to a broader judicial pushback against New Deal policies during the mid-1930s.
4. The ruling emphasized the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce, limiting federal intervention in local business matters.
5. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States set a precedent for later cases that would further define the scope of federal regulatory power.

Review Questions

• How did Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States challenge the federal government's regulatory authority during the Great Depression?
  • Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States challenged the federal government's regulatory authority by ruling that Congress had exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause when it tried to regulate intrastate commerce through the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Supreme Court found that regulating local business practices like poultry selling fell outside federal jurisdiction, thereby undermining key New Deal initiatives aimed at economic recovery.
• Discuss the implications of the Schechter Poultry decision on the New Deal legislation and its future enforcement.
  • The implications of the Schechter Poultry decision were significant for New Deal legislation, as it invalidated major components of the National Industrial Recovery Act and raised questions about federal power over economic regulation. This judicial setback led to increased scrutiny of New Deal programs, prompting President Roosevelt to consider court-packing strategies and revise his approach to economic recovery efforts. The ruling demonstrated a judicial willingness to check federal authority, impacting how future New Deal initiatives were structured and implemented.
• Evaluate the long-term effects of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States on federal-state relations and economic policy in America.
  • The long-term effects of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States on federal-state relations and economic policy were profound, as it reinforced a more limited view of federal regulatory power over local economies. This case contributed to a legal environment where states maintained greater control over their economic affairs, influencing subsequent policy debates about government intervention and regulation. Over time, while federal power would expand again, this case served as a reminder of the complexities involved in balancing state and national interests in economic governance.

Related terms

National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA): A New Deal legislation passed in 1933 aimed at stimulating economic recovery by regulating industry, establishing fair trade practices, and promoting industrial growth.

Commerce Clause: A clause in the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which was central to the arguments in Schechter Poultry.

New Deal:

A series of programs and policies instituted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression, aimed at economic recovery and social reform.