The Oyez Project: 1937 Term Decisions

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (No. 367)

Does the law of the several states applied by the federal courts as rules of decision in civil cases include all the decisional or common law of the states?

In 1842, the Supreme Court held that the laws of the several states embraces only the statutes authored by the state legislatures. Federal judges were free to ignore the states' common (judge-made) law and substitute their own rules. Brandeis rejected this long-standing precedent on several grounds including the view that the 1842 decision represented "an unconstitutional assumption of power by the Courts of the United States." This case was a grand victory for states to express public policy through the decisions of state courts without interference from federal judges.

Palko v. Connecticut (No. 135)

Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?

The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. In his majority opinion, Cardozo formulated principles that were to direct the Court's actions for the next three decades. He noted that some Bill of Rights guarantees--such as freedom of thought and speech--are fundamental, and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right. Palko died in Connecticut's electric chair on April 12, 1938.

South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell (No. 161)

Did the law impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?

The Court upheld the law. The Court acknowledged that the law posed a burden on interstate commerce. However, regulating state highways is "so peculiarly of local concern." Moreover, Congress had not previously invoked the commerce power to implement national standards on this issue. Hence, South Carolina had the right to act. The law was carefully drawn and applied equally to intrastate and interstate travelers.

United States v. Carolene Products Co. (No. 640)

Does the law violate the Commerce Power granted to Congress in Article Section 8 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

The Court upheld the act. In this otherwise unremarkable case, the Court planted the seeds for a new jurisprudence in a footnote to Stone's opinion for the Court. Here Stone gives a presumption of constitutionality to economic regulation. The Court would no longer substitute its views on economic policy for the views of Congress. Stone went further in footnote four by cautiously asserting that certain types of legislation might not merit deference toward constitutional validity. The most controversial element in the footnote was the suggestion that prejudice directed against discrete and insular minorities may call for "more searching judicial inquiry."