Not so fast, Mr. President

Shortly after taking office, President Roosevelt and Congress teamed up and began passing "New Deal" legislation. Unfortunately, they met serious resistance in the form of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Today we'll look at a pre-New Deal case that sets the stage for a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. We'll also see three cases from the New Deal era with similar decisions.

In the next post, we'll wrap up the New Deal with a more broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. We will see this new interpretation opening the door for FDR's economic reform.

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Facts
Congress took the initiative in fighting the exploitation of children for labor. They passed laws making it illegal to ship cotton products manufactured by children across state lines. In other words, they went around their ass to get to their elbow. A North Carolina cotton mill broke the law, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Question
Is it within the authority of Congress to prohibit such transportation of goods?

Holding
No

Reasoning
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce in order to prevent harmful results. In the case of these cotton products, the harmful action has already occurred. It is true that if the federal government began seizing sweaters (or whatever), cotton mills would stop using child labor. However, this would be an indirect effect. Congress only has authority to make regulations with direct effects.

Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. (1935)

Facts
Congress enacted compulsory retirement and pension plans for railroad workers. Their argument was that an aging railroad workforce is a threat to the safety and efficiency of rail transportation.

Questions
1. Are safety and efficiency of the railroad within the domain of the Commerce Clause?
2. On these grounds, may Congress mandate railroad companies to provide pension plans?

Holding
1. Yes
2. No

Reasoning
1. Railroad safety and efficiency have a direct effect on interstate commerce.
2. The aging railroad workforce has an indirect effect on safety and efficiency, and is therefore outside the scope of the Commerce clause.

A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)

Facts
A Brooklyn, NY slaughterhouse was indicted for violating the "Live Poultry Code", which was a group of federal laws regulating the poultry industry. Defense argued that all violations of the code occurred within New York state, and were therefore not a federal issue. Congress pointed out that all of the chickens were shipped in from other states.

Question
Does the interstate shipping of the poultry give the federal government authority over Schecter?

Holding
No

Reasoning
All violations of the code occurred after the chickens came to rest in the state of New York. The state retains sovereignty over these acts.

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

Facts
The Bituminous Coal Act provided coal workers with a collective bargaining agreement. This really upset stockholders. Mr. Carter was so upset that he sued his own company.

Question
Can the federal government force coal companies to honor a collective bargaining agreement?

Holding
No

Reasoning
The collective bargaining agreement is not commerce. It occurs before commerce, and has only an indirect effect on the buying and selling of coal products. This issue should be left up to the states.

*summarized from Life of a Law Student