A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=295 U.S. 495 (1935) |date=1935 |subject=Constitutional Law }} '''Facts'''''''''The plaintiff operated a chicken...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
'''Facts''' | '''Facts''' | ||
The plaintiff operated a chicken warehouse where they slaughtered chickens and then sold them exclusively in state. Congress tried to govern their wages, regulations, etc. | |||
Revision as of 21:09, March 7, 2020
| A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 295 U.S. 495 (1935) |
| Date decided | 1935 |
Facts
The plaintiff operated a chicken warehouse where they slaughtered chickens and then sold them exclusively in state. Congress tried to govern their wages, regulations, etc.
Issues
Where the scope of Congress’ interstate commerce clause ends.
Holding/Decision
The undisputed facts afford no warrant for the argument that the poultry handled by the defendants at their slaughterhouse markets was in a current flow of interstate commerce, and was thus subject to congressional regulation.
Rules
The poultry had come to a permanent rest within the state. Where the effect of intrastate transactions is merely indirect, such transactions remain within the domain of state power.
