Language
Country/Area
No result found
hock the whole country! How did the two "economic regulation cases" in 1934 change the direction of the Supreme Court's judgment
In the 1930s, the American economy was in a deep valley. The New Deal implemented by then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the American people look forward to it, but these policies also ushered in many worries and challenges. Concerns about the Supreme Court in particular were growing, but early in 1934 two important decisions gave hope to the forces supporting the New Deal.
Each of the two cases, Home Builders and Loan Association v. Bleasdale and Nabia v. New York, involved state laws related to economic regulation. In Bleasdale, Minnesota temporarily suspended enforcement of creditor remedies to deal with mortgage foreclosures. The Supreme Court held that such temporary relief would not prejudice contractual obligations. The "Naibia Case" recognized New York State's implementation of milk price controls based on police power. The results of these two cases gave the Roosevelt administration some comfort with the Supreme Court's previous decisions.
"This court gives the government the power to promote the public welfare from powers established earlier."
This wave of momentum is not only changing the direction of the court's judgment, but also changing the understanding of Congress's ability to regulate the economy. The judicial issues presented by the Supreme Court in the "Naibiya Case" are far-reaching, because this case shows that the court has abandoned its past distinction between public and private economic activities, thus affecting subsequent wage regulation, labor and congressional regulation. Legal analysis methods for business.
However, on May 27, 1935, the so-called "Black Monday" became a major blow to the Roosevelt administration. The Supreme Court struck down three Roosevelt administration cases in unanimous rulings, setting out in detail the standards for individual property rights and appropriate legislative delegation, raising concerns about the future of the New Deal.
On another sentencing day known as "White Monday," the situation seemed to have taken a new turn. The court again upheld the New Deal in three cases at this time, including West Shore Hotels Co. v. Parrish. The victories in these cases not only inspired supporters of the New Deal, but also opened a new chapter in many future legal cases, especially regarding unions and labor rights.
"The passage of the Cornelius Hot Oil Act will provide the necessary and legal support for the government to regulate the oil industry."
The case of Panma Heavy Refining Company v. Ruian was the beginning of the first wave of challenges to the New Deal. This case examined the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act. In the judgment of this case, the court supported the oil companies at a ratio of eight to one, holding that Congress failed to properly authorize the president to exercise it, and the specific standards for this law were too vague, making it illegal. Although this ruling was a major setback for the Roosevelt administration, it still gave it the opportunity to further amend the law. As the New Deal expanded, the court's attitude also influenced the future strategy of the Roosevelt administration.
Combining the above cases, it is not difficult to see that the interpretation of these laws not only changed the court's position, but also led the country to rethink the constitution and the allocation of government power. This series of events also shows how the Supreme Court gradually affects economic policy and legislative direction. In this era of transformation, we should perhaps think about: Is it possible to find a more balanced solution between law and economy to promote the country's sustainable development?
