Home » LAW » Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States 1935  

Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States 1935  

Lecture notes: 5-24-2016

 This is a new section.

 Congress cannot delegate its law making authority to the President—even to protect people from sick chickens.

•       Delegation theory says that Congress may not redelegate its law-making authority to another branch (or to private groups).

•       Some books call this “non-delegation theory” or “non-delegation doctrine.”


14 Comments

  1. H Effectlab παρέχοντας υψηλού επιπέδου υπηρεσιών Κατασκευή Ιστοσελίδων Ηράκλειο Κρήτης (Κατασκευή Ιστοσελίδων Ηράκλειο Κρήτης) και πάντα με γνώμονα την απόδοση της επένδυσης για τον πελάτη της μπορεί και παραδίδει καλοσχεδιασμένες και λειτουργικές ιστοσελίδες, φιλικές προς τα κινητά τηλέφωνα, tablets, προσφέροντας μια ποιοτική εμπειρία χρήστη.

  2. Question: Did congress unconstitutionally delegate power to regulate certain industries without standards to the president? The court ruled that it was indeed unconstitutional, that the president could not have such power to make laws regarding certain industries at his will. Congress also failed to have any guidelines for that delegation of power to the president.

  3. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was an act passed by Congress authorizing the president to regulate industry for fair wages and prices that would stimulate economic recovery. The legislation was enacted in June 1933 during the Great Depression as part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal legislative program.

  4. Primary Holding
    Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority to the executive branch.
    Facts
    Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress allowed the President to regulate certain industries by distributing authority to develop codes of conduct among business groups and boards in those industries. The Act did not provide standards for the President or the business groups in implementing its objectives. When Schechter Poultry Corp. was indicted for violating a business code governing the poultry industry in New York City, it argued that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the non-delegation doctrine.

  5. I. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States 1935
    II. 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
    III. Facts: Following the Great Depression, a series of legislative acts were passed during Roosevelt’s presidency in an attempt to reverse the economic condition. One of these was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which regulated the sale of chickens. Under these new conditions, Schechter Poultry Corporation was charged with various violations, which included unfair business practices and the sale of unhealthy chickens. Schechter Poultry Corporation argued that these provisions were in violation of the Constitution, for the reason that it delegated legislative power to the executive branch. They were charged for various violations in a district court and the Court of Appeals affirmed many of them, but not all.
    IV. Issues:
    Was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 in violation of the United States Constitution?
    V. Decision and Action: (1) Yes.
    VI. Reasoning: Per Hughes.
    (1) The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the executive branch; furthermore, it failed to provide necessary guidelines for its implementation.
    VII. Concurring Opinion(s): Per Cardozo.
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion(s): N/A
    IX. Voting Coalitions: (9 to 0). Unanimous.
    X. Summary: Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States 1935 limited the President’s power and affirmed that he or she can not pass laws to satisfy their own political agenda.
    XI. Free Space:

  6. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
    295 U.S. 495, 55 S.CT. 837 (1935)
    Facts: The New Deal Program was introduced by President Roosevelt in efforts to regulate interstate commerce and reduce unemployment. The act allowed for the regulation of codes of conduct for business competition, including the standard for wages, hours, and working conditions. Schechter’s s;slaughterhouse was convicted of violating the National Recovery Administration Act. It was found that a section of the Act, Live Poultry Code, was an unauthorized delegation of power to the executive branch.
    Issues:
    Was the action of Congress, delegating legislative power to the president of regulating industries without standards, unconstitutional?
    Decision and Action: (1) Yes
    Reasoning: Per Hughes.
    Congress failed to give necessary guidelines for the presidents implementation of his role in this case,
    The Act was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power
    Concurring Opinions: Per Cardozo, Stone. The president is directed to inquire, call out poor practices and denounce them when discovered.
    Dissenting Opinions: N/A
    Voting Coalition: For the majority, Hughes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Roberts. Concurring, Cardozo, Stone.
    Summary: The congress actions were wrongful and unconstitutional in delegating legislative powers cited in the Act to the president.
    Free Space:

  7. Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress permitted the President to control specific enterprises by disseminating power to foster sets of rules among business gatherings and sheets in those ventures. The Act didn’t give guidelines to the President or the business bunches in executing its targets. At the point when Schechter Poultry Corp. was arraigned for abusing a business code administering the poultry business in New York City, it contended that the law was an illegal infringement of the non-appointment regulation.

  8. It’s interesting to see how the Supreme Court has twisted the Interstate Commerce Clause. In Schechter, the Court used it to limit the President’s power in regulating poultry, yet they would later expand its power in later cases regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It makes it seem as if the Court has largely ignored the precedent set in Schechter as Congress has gained considerably more power through its use of the Interstate Commerce Clause in later years.

  9. Setting aside the part about interstate commerce, I don’t understand why Congress chose this route. Like, this all seems rather silly. If instead of giving the NRA the authority to “set fair codes for business competition, including standards for wages, hours, and working conditions”, Congress had given them the authority to make recommendations, and then passed laws based on those recommendations, they’d get the same result, without having to deal with a Supreme Court case. It’s overly convoluted, but what isn’t in American politics? I guess I just don’t get why this case even needed to happen.

  10. In this case, “The Live Poultry Code” was ruled as being unconstitutional. The president was not allowed to have this lawmaking authority. I agree with the ruling as it does talk about there being a situation in which there is a “time” like a possible economic crises for the president to have lawmaking authority to maybe help the country. I agree with this as this would be my own ruling because I do support the president having this ability if needed in a time of crises as mentioned.

  11. What’s interesting about Schechter v. US is that the Court interpreted NIRA as Congress delegating law-making authority to the president, but more importantly, that it includes the actions of private corporations and the influence that they could have on those laws. My question is sort of a chicken-or-the-egg issue: Did the Court find ONLY that NIRA unconstitutionally delegated law-making authority, or was it the involvement of private business groups that made the action unconstitutional. I ask this because I understand anecdotally that the NRA is responsible for much of the language in the Stand Your Ground laws in America — is there any law governing the influence of private groups on legislators, or on the executive? What is to stop Northrup Grumman from telling the executive that if the president changes rules of engagement to allow X action, NG will be able to use their weapons differently (and sell more to the government)?

  12. Sebastian MoscosoMay 24, 2021
    This case was during the Lochner era court where FDR had limited power pushing his progressive agenda. It was during the time of the New Deal. Basically FDR passed a legislation that regulated the poultry being sold and even though this benefitted the well being of the nation the supreme court ruled that this was unconstitutional. It interfered with private business and sided as they did with the big corporations. This led to FDR issuing a statement later on during his second term that he was going to add a justice for every USSJ that was above 70. This lead to the switch in time to save 9 (Justice Owen Roberts switched).
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jarod Rhymes
    Jarod RhymesMay 24, 2021
    This is very interesting because it showcases the very flawed mechanisms of the legislative and executive branches. The National Industrial Recovery Act allowed the president to interfere with private business and punish them for violations based on parameters that were not clearly established by the government to the corporations.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Itsawong Pongreangrong
    Itsawong PongreangrongMay 24, 2021
    Still, the executive and legislative branches ganged up innocent bussiness. The court is the savior of the constitution and gave justice to bussiness.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Amy Siddiqui
    Amy SiddiquiMay 24, 2021
    The Live Poultry Code was unconstitutional and the conviction of the Schechter Poultry Corporation was not correct according to the Supreme Court. The Court understood that some emergency like an economic crisis may call for some extraordinary remedies, but that does not mean that constitutional power can be created or increased. They found the Act to be unconstitutional because it exceeded Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce and State powers were being invaded. They also mention that Congress cannot renounce or transfer their legislative powers to others as they were vested with them.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Alex Nguyen
    Alex NguyenMay 23, 2021
    While the president has good intentions the way he tried to regulate the poultry industry was ruled unconstitutional as congress gave their powers to the president which they can’t due as we have a government formed on checks and balances.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Yesenia Licona
    Yesenia LiconaMay 23, 2021
    In this case the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the president to attempt to regulate the industry and for congress to be trying to hand over its law making power over to the executive branch.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Cassidy McLernon
    Cassidy McLernonMay 23, 2021
    Congress allowed the President to regulate certain industries by distributing authority to make codes of conduct. Schechter Poultry Corporation was indicted for violating said code of conduct, and they filed a suit arguing the law was a violation of the non-delegation doctrine. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Schechter, and stated it was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Maeve Riordan
    Maeve RiordanMay 23, 2021
    This case is an instance where Congress delegated too much of its power to the President making it unconstitutional. The National Industrial Recovery Act crossed a line in how it allowed the President to regulate industries.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jacqueline Lopez
    Jacqueline LopezMay 22, 2021
    The Court ruled that per Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, “Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer its essential legislative functions with which it is thus invested.” Therefore, it was unconstitutional for congress to transfer its law making authority to the executive branch consequently delegitimizing the NIRA. The ruling helped limit the powers of the President and the federal government as they relate to state and commerce matters.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Adam Faber
    Adam FaberMay 22, 2021
    This case found that the act that Congress could not delegate its power to regulate to the president. Since with this power, the president could create how to own policies related to this industry.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Lauren Williamson
    Lauren WilliamsonMay 22, 2021
    This case ruled that it was unconstitutional for the president to have lawmaking authority. I agree with this as one person should not be making all of the laws in a country.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Sean Flynn
    Sean FlynnJun 2, 2020
    A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp vs United States
    President wanted to change food regulations to devolve codes of conduct amongst business groups and boards in the industry. The problem is the act the president was looking to establish didn’t provide clear guidelines or objectives for either party. Shechter was indicted for poultry violations but the courts ruled in their favor unanimously because there was no previous precedent. The court also felt like the act didn’t rules or standards to evaluate industry activity.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Amy Gordon
    Amy GordonMay 28, 2020
    This case limited the powers of Congressional regulation but seems to have been very narrowly applied. This ruling was only applied because the Schechter Poultry Company only sold chickens to buyers who lived in the same state, so this did not technically count as “interstate commerce”. In this case, I feel like the ruling was short-sighted- although there was no basis for interstate commerce, I believe that Congress should have a role in providing consumer protections, possibly under the general welfare clause.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jamie Musso
    Jamie MussoMay 28, 2020
    Despite the good intentions of the president, This case deemed the National Industry recovery act of 1993 unconstitutional because according to the supreme court, the executive branch does not have the authority to create legislation for businesses/ corporations, which the legislative branch tried to delegate their powers to the executive branch.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Mara Ortiz
    Mara OrtizMay 28, 2020
    In this case the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional the president to try and regulate industry and for congress to be attempting to hand over its law making power over to the executive branch. I know we keep saying that morals have no place in law, but its difficult to agree with that when clearly Schechter Poultry Corporation were not being safe and needed intervention.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jared Cuthbertson
    Jared CuthbertsonMay 28, 2020
    In this case, the court found that the president could not make laws without Congress and that the body unconstitutionally delegated its legislative powers to the executive. after reading this case, I am confused about how executive orders can exist today because it seems to me that they do just that.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Sarita Cavazos
    Sarita CavazosMay 27, 2020
    this case was saddening to me, because while the president was to me, correct in his desires and moral in his wishes in protecting people from toxic food, the court was right and the legislation had attempted to redelegate its powers to the executive branch in this case.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Brianna Moling
    Brianna MolingMay 27, 2020
    The Court ruled that the President’s power to regulate certain industries was unconstitutional. The President cannot have control over whatever laws he wants in order to achieve a goal. The Act was also unconstitutional because Congress didn’t provide guidelines for how the Act should be implemented.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    April Quevedo
    April QuevedoMay 27, 2020
    The Supreme Court ruled against the President and his indictment of Schechter Poultry Corp, essentially stating that Congress did not have the power to delegate its lawmaking powers to the President or anyone in the executive branch. Anyone else find it weird that the Act did not lay out a process or standards for regulation?
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Augustas Tamavicius
    Augustas TamaviciusMay 27, 2020
    An interesting case, as it rendered one of President Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, the National Industry Recovery Act of 1993, unconstitutional. The NIRA gave the executive branch the power to regulate industries by solely granting authority to develop codes of conduct for businesses. The Schechter Poultry Corporation was indicting for violating business code governing the production of poultry in New York City. The Supreme Court found that, even though the Schechter Poultry Corporation had sold contaminated chickens, the executive branch did not have the authority to create legislation under any circumstance.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Crystal Quevedo
    Crystal QuevedoMay 27, 2020
    The National Industrial Recovery Act went too far in allowing the president to regulate specific industries
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Johnathon Giesecke
    Johnathon GieseckeMay 27, 2020
    non-delegation theory states that congress can not delegate its law-making authority to other branches. the court ruled that the president can not have just make whatever laws necessary to achieve a policy goal.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Johanna Fernandez
    Johanna FernandezMay 27, 2020
    The Act by Congress gave too much power to the President that had to real rules or guidelines. There has to be some control and balance in power, which includes regulating the Presidential power domestically.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Justyna Kucharczyk
    Justyna KucharczykMay 27, 2020
    The question here is whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President by giving him power to regulate certain industries w/o providing any guidance? NOO the president cannot make laws that establish rules or standards within industrial activity.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Martin Tully
    Martin TullyMay 27, 2020
    The Court found that the delegation of power from Congress to the president is unconstitutional because the creation of laws – according to Article 1, Section 1 – is something that is purely for the legislative branch, and giving this power to the executive branch is an overstep of the separation of powers.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Brayden Dunstone
    Brayden DunstoneMay 27, 2020
    Regardless of the material in the Act itself, the Courts decision to strike down the National Industrial Recovery Act for unconstitutionally delegating legislative power to the President. In a situation where the Court ruled in the opposite direction, a slippery slope argument could be made where the executive ends up with all legisltative power. Unlikely even if the Court ruled in the opposite direction, but still a scary thought.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Matt Springer
    Matt SpringerMay 27, 2020
    As part of FDR’s New Deal, the National Industrial Act regulated interstate commerce to help stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. The Act was authorized to set fair codes for business competition standards via wages, hours, and working conditions. When Schechter Poultry Corporation violated a code governing the poultry industry in NYC, they argued that the Act was unconstitutional and violated the non-delegation doctrine. This case was unanimous. It provided another check on the president. The Court stated that the President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kiera Gnatz
    Kiera GnatzMay 27, 2020
    The National Industrial Recovery Act was a Congressionally passed act that instilled the power to regulate codes of conduct for certain businesses and industries. Congress delegated their lawmaking powers to the Executive, which is in violation of the non-delegation doctrine. The court unanimously determined that the President cannot be allowed to have unbridled power to enact any doctrine they should so choose without restrictions, and Congress did not have the Constitutional power to afford this privilege to the Executive. This echoes the ruling in the Curtis-Wright case.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Krystal Garcia Centeno
    Krystal Garcia CentenoMay 27, 2020
    I’m a bit conflicted on this case. I learned that Roosevelt’s poultry code fixed the maximum number of hours a poultry employee could work, imposed a minimum wage for poultry employees, and banned certain methods of “unfair competition.” I still believe those are important standards to uphold, but I can also understand the Court’s decision in needing more specific guidelines and having a check on the president.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Christopher Mathew
    Christopher MathewMay 26, 2020
    The National Industrial Recovery Act was found unconstitutional as at violated the non-delegation theory.. Congress failed to provide specifics on the guidelines of the Act, meaning that the president could do whatever he sees fit to achieve these goals, even without congressional approval.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Tess Manke
    Tess MankeMay 26, 2020
    Through the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress allocated to the President the power to regulate specific industries by developing codes of conduct for them. When Schechter Poultry Co. violated a code governing the poultry industry in NYC, they argued that the Act was unconstitutional and violated the non-delegation doctrine. Question: Did Congress unconstitutionally delegate this power to the President? YES. The Court decided unanimously that the Act was unconstitutional especially because they did not give the President any guidelines as to how to regulate these industries.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Blanca Henkle
    Blanca HenkleJun 2, 2019
    The delegation of power is clearly stated in the constitution, the Supreme Court ruled to protect the separation of power.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 30, 2019
    unanimous ruling in favor of Schechter and claimed that it was unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. the president is not allowed to have unbridled control to create whatever laws they see fit to meet an end goal.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Roaa Hussien
    Roaa HussienMay 30, 2019
    The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was an act passed by Congress authorizing the president to regulate industry for fair wages and prices that would stimulate economic recovery. The legislation was enacted in June 1933 during the Great Depression as part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal legislative program.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jacob Mattenson
    Jacob MattensonMay 29, 2019
    This case in unique in that a branch of government was willingly intending to hand over its power to another. This was struck down unaminously, as it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 15, 2018
    In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Hughes, the unanimous Court held that the Act was “without precedent” and was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The Court stated that the President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 15, 2018
    National Industrial Recovery Act was ruled unconstitutional based on violation of intrastate commerce, limited constitutional basis, and delegating Congress power to president.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Russell Dahlman
    Russell DahlmanJun 14, 2018
    In this case, the Court unanimously ruled that the National Industry Recovery Act unconstitutionally delegated law-making powers to president. In its ruling, the Court established a precedent known as delegation theory (or non-delegation theory) which states that Congress may not re-delegate law-making authority to any other branch or private group.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 14, 2018
    This limits Congress in giving its law making abilities to another branch of government or a government agency which ensures that only elected representatives make laws.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 10, 2018
    This case has to do with separation of powers and the specificity with which each branch of government must remain within the scope of the powers provided to them through the Constitution. The branches of government cannot exchange or pass off responsibilities to one another.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Zara Khan
    Zara KhanJun 10, 2018
    The question held before the court in this case is if Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President.
    This case deals with the non-delegation doctrine, which Schechter Poultry Corp. argued that Congress violated.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 9, 2018
    New York city argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated non-delegation doctrine.

    Non-delegation Doctrine: “The principle in administrative law that congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to agencies. Rather, when it instructs agencies to regulate, it must give them an “intelligible principle” on which to base their regulations”.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 9, 2018
    Court held that the Act was “without precedent” and was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal. The law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity, meaning Congress failed to provide the necessary guidelines for the implementation of this functionally legislative process.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Andrew Tuider
    Andrew TuiderJun 9, 2018
    I think this case is a great example of the Court restricting Congress expanding their power under the commerce clause. In their unanimous decision, the Court distinguished between direct effects on interstate commerce, which Congress could lawfully regulate, and indirect, which were purely matters of state law. In this case, Schechters’ chickens were only being sold to local customers, making any intrastate commerce effect indirect and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of Congress.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 6, 2018
    Question: Did Congress, in authorizing the “codes of unfair competition” establish the standards of legal obligation, thereby performing its essential legislative function?

    Holding: No

    Reasoning: The code-making authority conferred was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Under Title 1, Section:1 of the Act there was a broad “Declaration of Policy,” and the President’s approval of a code was simply conditioned on his finding that it would “tend to effectuate the policy of this title.” The Act imposed no limitations on the scope of the new laws, and there was a very wide field of legislative possibilities.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 30, 2018
    I think the case is quite fascinating in the area of intrastate and interstate commerce, and I found that the court In saying “fair competition ” as being broad, is true because what can define fair competition in constitutional terms. Likewise, I think this case interesting in terms of the court saying the executive branch has no constitutional power in intrastate commerce and that the president can not exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of trade or industry since one could also argue that even though interstate commerce is matter of state sit also could hold national issues such as those visiting from other states who could be affected by the poultry that was not of national standard.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 11, 2017
    Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the Court that petitioners in No. 854 were convicted in the District Court of the US for the Eastern District of NY on 18 counts of an indictment charging violations of what is known as the “Live Poultry Code.” By demurrer to the indictment and appropriate motions on the trial, the defendants contended that the code has been adopted pursuant to an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of legislative power, that it attempted to regulate intrastate transactions which lay outside thee authority of Congress and that in certain provisions, it was repugnant to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 11, 2017
    The court had a unanimous holding regarding this case that since the Schechter Poultry Corporation do not deal with interstate commerce, then the President’s ability to regulate does not apply here. It is a great example of how inter vs intra state commerce comes into play, in addition to states rights and discretion. Permitting the President to make laws under this act as “a delegation of its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations, empowering them to enact laws for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trades or industries, would be utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress”, and therefore the President cannot be granted the right to have the same functions of making laws like Congress, and was momentarily given through this act.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    Hi Ewelina. This is a great comment. Thank you. Rashida (T1) also raised this point in class. I “skipped” the interstate v intrastate aspect of this case in class but I will come back to it after the midterm.
    Oct 11, 2017•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 11, 2017
    So is the significance of the case is that Live Poultry Code within the New Deal during the Roosevelt administration was unconstitutional? That it was a violation of the separation of powers of the president and congress??
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 11, 2017
    The constitutional question is whether or not congress had unconstitutionally delegated their legislative powers to the president. Does the act of congress allow the president congressional powers against the provisos of the constitution?
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 10, 2017
    Significance: The ruling ended litigation of upwards of 500 cases of labor code violations. More broadly, the decision was a limit on the expansion of executive power during the New Deal, as the Court ruled that Congress cannot delegate their constitutional power of legislating to the Executive. The ruling put a limitation on the authority the Executive could exercise in terms of laws and regulations, while also maintaining Congress’ sole power to create law.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 10, 2017
    FACTS:
    Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. This was meant to regulate interstate commerce, help stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment under FDR’s New Deal program.
    The Schechter brothers operated a slaughterhouse NYC where they received live chickens from outside of the state, slaughtered them and then sold them to local stores. They were then convicted in a federal district court for violating a few standards in the NIRA including the live poultry code in section 3 of the act. An appellate court affirmed and they appealed to the SC which granted them certiorari. The Court then ruled in their favor deeming a portion of the NIRA which established the live poultry code to be an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch from Congress.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 10, 2017
    Argument: Schechter Poultry Corporation argued that the Live Poultry Code was written and implemented by an Act that provided the President with powers that went directly against the Constitution. Furthermore, the corporation argued that under the commerce clause of the Constitution, the codes were only able to implement penalties for interstate commerce, and the corporation conducted intrastate commerce business.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 10, 2016
    Holding:

    The code-making authority conferred was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Under Title 1, Section:1 of the Act there was a broad “Declaration of Policy,” and the President’s approval of a code was simply conditioned on his finding that it would “tend to effectuate the policy of this title.” The Act imposed no limitations on the scope of the new laws, and there was a very wide field of legislative possibilities.The delegated power of legislation was unconfined and vagrant.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 4, 2016
    The significance of this case is that the NIRA violated the separation of powers and this relates to our class because there has been many cases where the executive power has been questioned. Executive power has expanded but the verdict of this case was that NIRA violated the 10th Amendment which for overstepped the federal power using the interstate commerce clause which resulted in having the New Deal that FDR created shut down.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 4, 2016

    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 4, 2016
    Argument for the Petitioners:
    The petitioners can argue that the National Recovery Administration was unconstitutionally given legislative powers when Congress authorized it to “set codes of fair competition”. As mentioned in the Constitution, “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”. Also mentioned in the constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, par.18 Congress is not permitted to abdicate or transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it was vested. Since the National Recovery Administration was given legislative power, this transfer of power is unconstitutional.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 29, 2016
    US argued that the petitioners violatied the Live Poultry Code, under Section:3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act.Section:3 of the Act authorized the President to approve “codes of unfair competition” for trades and industries, and a violation of any code provision in any transaction affecting interstate or foreign commerce was considered a misdemeanor.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 23, 2016
    Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
    295 U.S. 495

    Court opinion:
    Section:3 of the Act was without precedent in that it supplied no standards for any trade, industry or activity. Instead of prescribing rules of conduct, it authorized the President to make the codes to prescribe them. Congress made an unconstitutional delegation because it vested in the President a clearly legislative function without imposing necessary standards and restrictions.

    Facts:
    – The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 allowed price and wage fixing, as well as allowed the sale of whole chickens (including unhealthy ones).
    – The government claims that the Schechter corp. sold sick poultry.
    – Originally 60 charges, but they were brought down to 18.

    Statement of issues:
    Did Congress, in authorizing the “codes of unfair competition” establish the standards of legal obligation, thereby performing its essential legislative function?

    Decision and Action:
    No. The code-making authority was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

    Reasoning of the court:
    The Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals remanding the petition for review to the Secretary of Labor for further proceedings. The Court held that petitioner had exceeded his standard-setting authority because he had not shown that the new benzene exposure limit was reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 23, 2016
    Schechter Poultry Corporation v United States
    295 US 495 (1935)

    Facts: In 1933, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act. Under the Act, the National Recovery Administration was authorized to set fair codes for business competition including standards for wages, hours, and working conditions. The Schechter brothers operated slaughterhouses in New York City which received live chickens from outside the state. They then slaughtered the chickens and sold them to local stores (in state). The brothers were convicted of violating a number of standards under the set by the National Recovery Administration.

    Issue: Is the case within the realm of Congress’s power over interstate commerce? Is the Live Poultry Code of the National Industrial Recovery Act an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch?
    Decision: 1. No; 2. Yes

    Reasoning: 1. The Schechter brothers were engaged in intrastate commerce that only had had a minor effect on interstate commerce and as such it was outside Congress’s regulatory power over interstate commerce. 2. Using a similar ruling as in Panama Refining Company v. Ryan, the Court drew again from Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” and the same part of the constitution notes that Congress is “authorized to make all class which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution”. Congress is not allowed to transfer to relinquish these powers. In the Recovery Act, rather than setting standards or codes, it authorizes the making of them. The Court sees this as as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 2, 2015
    One of the important factors in the Court’s ruling is that the Schechter brothers’ business was not operating in inter state commerce and therefore their actions don’t fall under the auspices of Congressional regulation. I agree that the president himself should not be able to set economic standards as to what constitutes fairness, as this is best left to the legislature, the idea that only this company and the residents of New York. This may be one of the first cases that sheds light on the logical problems of the inter/intra state distinction. Although the chickens are slaughtered in New York, the Court couldn’t have really believed that the chickens would then pose no threat to other citizens of other states, or that Congress, instead of the president, should be able to regulate their company.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 27, 2015
    important reasoning from the Court:

    The act does not define “fair competition”” and is too broad for interpretation.
    The act allows the President to to approve a code and “impose his own conditions, adding to or taking away from what is proposed, as ‘in his own discretion’…” which again shows how broad the act is.

    Thus it was a deemed a “code-making” authority, like law making, and violates the non-delegation doctrine.


    As the Justices laid it out, it kind of seems like Congress was being either super lazy with specifics of this legislation, or was purposefully coerced, politically, to enact the legislation with a lot of room for interpretation.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 27, 2015
    Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933. Which was part of the New Deal Program this was set to help stimulate the economy & reduce unemployment.

    The Schechter brothers owned & operated slaughterhouses in the U.S mainly importing live poultry from outside the state, killing them and selling them to local stores. They were convicted in federal district court for violating certain standards under the National Recovery Administration.
    The courts found that the Schechter brothers were engaged in intrastate commerce. However, this was outside the scope of Congress. Justice Hughes found that the (NIRA) was an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch.
    The courts decision was unanimous.

    The Federal Trade Commissions Act Section 5 (15 USCA Sec.45) expressed “Unfair methods of competition,” which were declared to be unlawful.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 27, 2015
    The National Industrial Recovery Act delegated to the President power to create codes for “business competition . . . standards for wages, hours, and working conditions” (O’Brien 445). The Schechter Co. was engaged in intrastate commerce as opposed to interstate commerce.

    May the Congress delegate authority to the President to create the described codes? No.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php