The Oyez Project: 1936 Term Decisions

De Jonge v. Oregon (No. 123)

Does Oregon's criminal syndicalism statute violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes, the Court held that the Oregon statute, as applied, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After reviewing the record, the Court determined that De Jonge's sole offense was assisting in a public meeting held under the auspices of the Communist Party. The Court reasoned that to preserve the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly - principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment - not the auspices under which a meeting is held, but the purpose of the meeting and whether the speakers' remarks transcend the bounds of freedom of speech must be examined, which had not occurred in De Jonge's case. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (No. 419)

Was the Act consistent with the Commerce Clause?

Yes. The Court held that the Act was narrowly constructed so as to regulate industrial activities which had the potential to restrict interstate commerce. The justices abandoned their claim that labor relations had only an indirect effect on commerce. Since the ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining (one activity protected by the Act) is "an essential condition of industrial peace," the national government was justified in penalizing corporations engaging in interstate commerce which "refuse to confer and negotiate" with their workers.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis (No. 837)

Did the Act arbitrarily impose taxes in violation of the Fifth Amendment or subvert principles of federalism?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the tax under the Social Security Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power. The Court found that the tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment. The Court took note of recent unemployment statistics from the years 1929 to 1936, maintaining that "[i]t is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. . .The nation responded to the call of the distressed."

United States v. Belmont (No. 532)

Did the diplomatic agreements between the two countries compel the bank to release the assets?

Yes. Even though the diplomatic agreements had not been implemented as formal treaties with Senate approval, they did empower the United States to seek assets on the Soviet Union's behalf. Justice Sutherland argued for a unanimous Court that different kinds of treaties existed which did not require Senate approval, but nonetheless overrode state statutes. "Plainly, the external powers of the United States are to be exercised without regard to state laws or policies," he reasoned.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (No. 98)

Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

The Court agreed that the President was allowed much room to operate in executing the Joint Resolution; it found no constitutional violation. Making important distinctions between internal and foreign affairs, Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (No. 293)

Did the minimum wage law violate the liberty of contract as construed under the Fifth Amendment as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutionally legitimate. The Court noted that the Constitution did not speak of the freedom of contract and that liberty was subject to the restraints of due process. The Court also noted that employers and employees were not equally "free" in negotiating contracts, since employees often were constrained by practical and economic realities. This was found to be especially true in the case of women. This case explicitly overruled the Court's decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923).