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
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-rulesanother-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