In the court case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), it was determined that a provision in the National Industrial Recovery Act granting excessive power to the President was unconstitutional. The Act allowed the President to establish regulations regarding business practices, such as employee wages and working hours. The court ruled that this was not within the President’s authority, as it was the responsibility of Congress to create laws. Additionally, the court found that the Act was attempting to regulate matters that were limited to a single state, which was deemed unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States declared a provision of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional. The NIRA allowed the President to approve industry-wide regulations, known as “codes of fair competition,” which covered areas such as minimum wages, prices, and work hours. The Court found that this violated the Nondelegation Doctrine and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It determined that Congress had gone beyond its authority by regulating local commercial activity that only had indirect effects on interstate commerce. Moreover, by granting the Agency for Industrial Recovery extensive powers to ensure “fair competition,” Congress had effectively delegated legislative power to the Executive branch. The Court held that Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President to create laws as they see fit for the recovery and growth of trade or industry. For instance, if Congress passed a law allowing the President to set prices for all gas stations nationwide, the Supreme Court would likely deem it unconstitutional due to Congress exceeding its power and granting excessive authority to the President.
The main issue in this case was whether the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and exceeded the federal government’s authority.
The Supreme Court ruled that the NIRA was unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to the executive branch and violated the Commerce Clause.
This case marked a significant setback for President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation, as it limited the federal government’s power to regulate business activities.
Yes, this case established an important precedent regarding the separation of powers and the limits of federal regulatory authority, which continues to influence constitutional law to this day.
The Court reasoned that the NIRA violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by granting excessive legislative authority to the executive branch and interfering with the powers of Congress.
Yes, this case limited the federal government’s ability to regulate labor and business practices, as it struck down a key piece of New Deal legislation aimed at promoting fair competition and labor standards.
This case reinforced the principle of federalism by reaffirming the limits of federal power and preserving the authority of the states to regulate certain aspects of commerce within their borders.
Yes, there were dissenting opinions in this case, with some justices arguing that the NIRA was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
Following this case, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 to address some of the concerns raised by the Court’s decision and provide a new framework for labor regulation.
This case remains relevant in constitutional interpretation, particularly in discussions surrounding the separation of powers, federalism, and the limits of federal regulatory authority.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/schechter-poultry-corp-v-united-states-1935/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Schechter Poultry Corp. V. United States (1935). dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/schechter-poultry-corp-v-united-states-1935/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Schechter Poultry Corp. V. United States (1935). dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/schechter-poultry-corp-v-united-states-1935/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Schechter Poultry Corp. V. United States (1935). dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/schechter-poultry-corp-v-united-states-1935/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts