Procedural History
295 U.S. 495 (1935)
A landmark Supreme Court case that struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act's provisions allowing the President to regulate industry, marking a significant limitation on executive power.
Source: 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
Action: Schechter Poultry challenged the constitutionality of the National Industrial Recovery Act.
Outcome: The district court ruled against the government, finding the law unconstitutional as applied.
Significance: This decision challenged the extent of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
Action: The government appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
Outcome: The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing the limits of federal regulation.
Significance: The affirmation set the stage for a higher challenge to the law.
Action: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.
Outcome: The Court agreed to review the lower court's decisions regarding the National Industrial Recovery Act.
Significance: This marked the beginning of a critical examination of New Deal legislation.
Action: Oral arguments were presented before the Supreme Court.
Outcome: Arguments highlighted concerns about the separation of powers and the scope of Congress's regulatory authority.
Significance: The case attracted significant public and legal attention, reflecting broader societal concerns about executive authority.
Action: The Supreme Court issued its decision.
Outcome: The Court ruled unanimously that the National Industrial Recovery Act was unconstitutional.
Significance: The ruling limited federal power over local economic activities, reinforcing states' rights and marking a pivotal moment in administrative law.
At the time the Supreme Court heard the case, the A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. had already secured victories in both the district and appellate courts, establishing a precedent questioning the constitutionality of expansive federal regulatory powers.
The Supreme Court applied a de novo standard of review regarding the interpretation of the statutory and constitutional issues at play.
The final court ruled that the National Industrial Recovery Act's provisions were unconstitutional, effectively voiding regulations imposed under the Act.