The Judiciary & the Welfare State Economic Regulation
MEMBERSHIP OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Conservative*SwingLiberal Van DeVanter (R) McReynolds (D) Sutherland (R) Butler (D) Hughes, C.J. (R) Roberts (R) Brandeis (R) Stone (R) Cardozo (D) *The fearsome foursome of substantive due process–a remarkably consistent voting bloc: Willis Van DeVanter (Republican, Wyoming, Chair of Republican National Committee, Taft) James C. McReynolds (Democrat, Tennessee, U.S. Attorney General, Wilson) George Sutherland (Republican, Utah, state senator, Harding) Pierce Butler (Democrat, Minnesota, railroad attorney, Harding)
THE SUPREME COURT'S RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC REGULATIONBEFORE AND AFTER THE SWITCH IN TIME THAT SAVED NINE [Cases won by the government, i.e., where regulation was sustained, are printed in bold blue type.] NATIONAL REGULATIONSTATE REGULATION pre-switch U.S. v. E.C. Knight (1895) Champion v. Ames (1903) McCray v. U.S. (1904) Shreveport Rate Case (1914) Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Stafford v. Wallace (1922) Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) Carter v. Carter Coal (1936) U.S. v. Butler (1936) Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) Munn v. Illinois (1877) Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) Lochner v. New York (1905) Muller v. Oregon (1908) Burns Baking Company v. Bryan (1924) Home Building &Loan v. Blaisdell (1934) post-switch Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) U.S. v. Darby (1941) Wickard v. Filburn (1942) West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Edwards v. California (1941) [state lost, but strong view of national commerce power prevailed]