Cases - 1936 term

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Thu, 19 Nov 1936 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation Headquarters

Kenmore Avenue and Vulcan Street Buffalo NY 14207

Buffalo, NY 14207

United States

42° 57' 59.238" N, 78° 53' 55.5144" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

299 U.S. 304 (1936)

Argued

Thursday, November 19, 1936

Decided

Monday, December 21, 1936

Advocates

Martin Conboy (Argued the cause for the United States)

Neil P. Cullom (Argued the cause for appellees Barr Shipping Corp)

Homer S. Cummings (Argued the cause for the United States)

William Wallace (Argued the cause for appellees Curtiss-Wright)

Facts of the Case

Curtiss-Wright was charged with conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, which was engaged in an armed conflict in the Chaco. This violated a Joint Resolution of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Art. II

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.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis

Thu, 08 Apr 1937 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Steward Machine Co.

1236 North Apalachee Street Birmingham AL 35222

Birmingham, AL 35222

United States

33° 32' 15.54" N, 86° 46' 46.164" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

837

Petitioner

Steward Machine Company

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

301 U.S. 548 (1937)

Argued

Thursday, April 8, 1937

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1937

Facts of the Case

The Steward Machine Company challenged the validity of a tax imposed by the Social Security Act. The Act established a federal payroll tax on employers; however, if employers paid taxes to a state unemployment compensation fund (created by the states subject to federal standards), they were allowed to credit those payments toward the federal tax.

Question

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

Conclusion

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."

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Wed, 16 Dec 1936 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Cascadian Hotel

102 North Wenatchee Avenue Wenatche WA 98801

Wenatche, WA 98801

United States

47° 25' 33.528" N, 120° 18' 46.9296" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

293

Petitioner

West Coast Hotel Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Parrish

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

300 U.S. 379 (1937)

Argued

Wednesday, December 16, 1936

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1937

Facts of the Case

Elsie Parrish, an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, received sub- minimum wage compensation for her work. Parrish brought a suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wage fixed by state law.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Parrish, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Minimum Wages for Women Act, 1913 Wash. Laws 174; 14th 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).

De Jonge v. Oregon

Wed, 09 Dec 1936 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

123

Petitioner

De Jonge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

299 U.S. 353 (1937)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1936

Decided

Monday, January 4, 1937

Advocates

Maurice E. Tarshis (Multnomah County, Oregon, argued the cause for the appellee)

Osmond K. Fraenkel (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

On July 27, 1934, at a meeting held by the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge addressed the audience regarding jail conditions in the county and a maritime strike in progress in Portland. While the meeting was in progress, police raided it. De Jonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute. The law defines criminal syndicalism as "the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, sabotage or any unlawful acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political change or revolution." After being convicted, De Jonge moved for an acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction. Disagreeing, the State Supreme Court distinguished that the indictment did not charge De Jonge with criminal syndicalism, but rather that he presided at, conducted and assisted in conducting an assemblage of persons, organization, society and group called by the Communist Party, which was unlawfully teaching and advocating in Multnomah county the doctrine of criminal syndicalism and sabotage.

Question

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

Conclusion

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.

Wed, 10 Feb 1937 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.

4650 2nd Avenue Pittsburgh PA 15207

Pittsburgh, PA 15207

United States

40° 24' 45.1116" N, 79° 56' 44.1348" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

419

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

301 U.S. 1 (1937)

Argued

Wednesday, February 10, 1937

Decided

Monday, April 12, 1937

Facts of the Case

With the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Congress determined that labor- management disputes were directly related to the flow of interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated by the national government. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board charged the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. with discriminating against employees who were union members.

Question

Was the Act consistent with the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; US Const. Amend 5; National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

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.

United States v. Belmont

Thu, 04 Mar 1937 13:00:00 +0000

Location

August Belmont & Co.

78 Wall Street New York NY 10005

New York, NY 10005

United States

40° 42' 19.836" N, 74° 0' 28.2852" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

532

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Belmont

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

301 U.S. 324 (1937)

Argued

Thursday, March 4, 1937

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1937

Facts of the Case

In 1933, the United States established formal diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. This case involved a Russian metal works company which had deposited money in an American bank prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Soviet Union nationalized the company and attempted to reclaim its assets with the help of the United States. The bank refused to cooperate, citing protection of a New York law.

Question

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

Conclusion

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.