A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs.

The United States

By: Nandan PatelCivic and Economics Honors10/26/2013

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amicus Curiae Brief

• No amicus curiae briefs were filed by third parties.

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.

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:1. Congress cannot give the POTUS more power than

allowed by the Constitution.2. The POTUS can have power as long as it follows the

Constitution.

Dissenting Opinion

• No dissenting opinion was filed by the Justices.

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.

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