The Oyez Project: 1935 Term Decisions

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (No. 404)

Did Congress exceed its power in implementing and administering the TVA?

No. The Court held that Congress did not abuse its power with the TVA. Justice Hughes argued that the Wilson Dam, the location where the TVA was in the business of generating electricity, had been built originally in the interest of national defense: it produced materials involved in munitions manufacture. The government could sell excess electricity to consumers without violating the Constitution. This case is especially important for the concept of judicial review as expressed in Justice Brandeis's concurrence.. Brandeis articulated a set of "rules" governing the appropriateness of judicial review.

Carter v. Carter Coal Company (No. 636)

Did the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 exceed congressional powers under the Commerce Clause?

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court held that the 1935 Act overstepped the bounds of congressional power. The Court ruled that "commerce" is plainly distinct from "production." Employing workers, setting wages and working hours, and mining coal were found to be part of the local process of production, separate from any trade of goods that could be regulated under the Commerce Clause. In striking down the law, Justice Sutherland argued that "[e]verything which moves in interstate commerce has had a local origin. Without local production somewhere, interstate commerce. . . would practically disappear."

Morehead v. New York (No. 838)

Does the law violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes, the law is unconstitutional. The right of employers and employees to make contracts for wages in return for work "is part of the liberty protected by the due process clause." The state could not interfere with such contracts. The decision was so at odds with current thinking that national conventions of both political parties explicitly called for its repudiation. Within a year, the Court took a dramatic reversal of course.

United States v. Butler (No. 401)

Did Congress exceed its constitutional taxing and spending powers with the Act?

The Court found the Act unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, an arena reserved to the states. Even though Congress does have the power to tax and appropriate funds, argued Justice Roberts, in this case those activities were "but means to an unconstitutional end," and violated the Tenth Amendment.