1 / 14

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. The United States

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. The United States. By: Nandan Patel Civic and Economics Honors 10/26/2013. The Court Case. Known as: A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. The United States Case heard: May 2-3,1935 Case Decided: May 27, 1935 Chief Justice: Charles Evan Hughes.

eagan-flowers
Download Presentation

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. The United States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. The United States By: Nandan Patel Civic and Economics Honors 10/26/2013

  2. The Court Case • Known as: A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. The United States • Case heard: May 2-3,1935 • Case Decided: May 27, 1935 • Chief Justice: Charles Evan Hughes

  3. The Public Policy • Public policy in effect- The New Deal by Roosevelt • A series of economic reform bills during Great Depression (GD). • Public policy initiating the case- National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). • Important bill of the New Deal. • Let Congress regulate companies to fight GD. • Section 3 let the President write codes. • Roosevelt wrote the Live Poultry Code • This code regulated poultry companies. • The Live Poultry Code was violated by Schechter and that initiated the case.

  4. Background Information • Schechter Poultry was a chicken-selling business in New York (NY). • Owned by: Joseph, Alex, Martin, and Aaron Schechter. • Bought chickens in/out of NY and sold them in NY. • Charged by the US for 60 accounts of violating Live Poultry Code.

  5. More Background Information • Criminal Case: The US vs. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation. • Some charges: selling “unfit chicken”, not paying minimum wage, and selling chicken to unlicensed buyers. • Convicted for 20 charges and appealed to 2nd Circuit Appeal Court. • Lost the appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court.

  6. Schechter’s Arguments (Plaintiff) • NIRA code system is unconstitutional- gave the President legislative powers. • The Live Poultry Code is unconstitutional since POTUS made it. • Article 1, Section 1:- All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. • POTUS shouldn’t have the power to make laws- even small ones.

  7. Schechter’s Arguments Continued • NIRA (& Live Poultry Code) didn’t apply to them since they are an intrastate corporation. • All “criminal” activity done was in New York. • Intrastate:- Within a state. • US violated the Due Process Clause when they enforced the NIRA.

  8. The US Arguments (Defendant) • The NIRA & Live Poultry Code were for the good of the nation. • Helped the US economy get out of the Depression. • Lowered prices for chicken and made it affordable. • NIRA applied to Schechter since they are engaged in interstate commerce. • Both sides thought of the business differently. • Interstate:- Involving many states.

  9. Amicus Curiae Brief • No amicus curiae briefs were filed by third parties.

  10. The Decision • The Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of Schechter. ( 9 to 0 ) • Reversed Schechter’s convictions. • Said under Commerce Clause, Congress could only regulate interstate businesses. • Schechter Poultry Corporation was considered an intrastate business. • They were intrastate since the crimes committed were in NY.

  11. The Decision Continued • Declared the Live Poultry Code unconstitutional since the President made it. • Declared the NIRA unconstitutional since it gave the POTUS legislative powers. • Set two important precedents: • Congress cannot give the POTUS more power than allowed by the Constitution. • The POTUS can have power as long as it follows the Constitution.

  12. Dissenting Opinion • No dissenting opinion was filed by the Justices.

  13. Long Term Effects • Got rid of the NIRA- which gave POTUS unconstitutional power. • Led to the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) • Protected worker’s rights but put the federal government in charge of industrial activities. • Went to the Supreme Court and was ruled constitutional. • Justices were threatened by Roosevelt (more justices); read Congress’ power more broadly. • Because of the NLRA, Congress got more regulatory powers. • With more power in Congress, a restrained business market was formed.

  14. Bibliography • http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_schechter.html • http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=66&page=transcript • http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interstate • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrastate?s=t • http://www.thefreedictionary.com/amicus+curiae+brief • http://research.archives.gov/description/620469 • http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html • http://www.tjhsst.edu/~sgoswami/cases.htm#a4-4 • http://westlawinsider.com/legal-research/today-in-1935-schechter-v-u-s-rules-another-new-deal-law-unconstitutional/ • http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/1323#.UmmHdvk3tjQ • http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/633977/Wagner-Act • http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/timeline/1935.html • Pictures from Clipart & Google Images

More Related