Language
Country/Area
No result found
he Railroad Pension Crisis: Why Roosevelt's New Deal Program Failed to Escape Supreme Court Scrutin
In the 1930s, the New Deal programs actively promoted by the Roosevelt administration in the United States faced many legal challenges, the most controversial of which was the Supreme Court's review of the New Deal. Although several early rulings seemed to provide support to supporters of the New Deal, ultimately, the Supreme Court's decisions dealt a huge setback to the Roosevelt administration, especially the railroad pension proposed in 1945, which had a far-reaching impact not only on the economic environment at the time, but also on the future social welfare system in the United States.
The Supreme Court's ruling not only concerns the fate of the New Deal, but also tests the division of power between the president and Congress in the American constitutional system.
The year 1935 was marked by numerous legal challenges and lawsuits. In particular, in the Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad, the judge expressed doubts about the pension plan promoted in the New Deal and ultimately rejected the government's claim by a 4-5 vote. Judge Roberts believed that this practice not only failed to highlight its positive impact on railroad safety, but was also a "blatant appropriation" of private property, which violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Following this momentous ruling, the executive branch’s concerns about the Supreme Court have grown. President Roosevelt felt threatened by the Supreme Court's interference and even tried to change the composition of the court. This way of facing challenges has led to tortuous historical evaluations and further stimulated reflection on the concept of governing the country. Against this backdrop, other cases involving economic regulation were brought to court. The judges' rulings continued to show a cold attitude towards the New Deal, which repeatedly intensified the challenges facing Roosevelt.
The judges' comments emphasized that government power should be based on clear policy statements and specific standards, which directly led to the failure of several New Deal regulations.
For example, in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, the court's interpretation of congressional authority further posed difficulties for other New Deal legislation. In short, the economic recovery plan that Roosevelt had high hopes for gradually lost its footing at the legal level. This phenomenon undoubtedly reflects the profound influence of the superstructure on the grassroots social policies.
But this confrontation with the Supreme Court also caused historians to re-examine the Roosevelt administration's thinking on economic and social policies. In fact, Roosevelt sincerely hoped to save the American people who were struggling in the Great Depression through the New Deal. Unfortunately, the result of the court's ruling was not what the person wished for, which inevitably makes people wonder how to balance the tension between law and policy?
Bismarck once said, "Laws are not my idea," a statement that seemed particularly thought-provoking in the context of the challenges Roosevelt faced. In the gloomy year of 1935, the arrival of "Black Monday" not only changed the dynamics of the regime, but also pushed the entire American social security system into another magnificent journey. Faced with so many challenges, as the country moves forward with legal and policy choices, can such choices truly bring about beneficial changes, or will they simply trigger a chain reaction?
As we conclude our exploration of this period of history, one question we cannot avoid is: How did Roosevelt’s New Deal influence the legal system of contemporary American society and its future development direction?
