Opposition to New Deal by Supreme Court

The opposition to the New Deal from the Supreme Court can be understood within the context of the prevailing judicial philosophy of the time, commonly known as the Lochner era. During this era, which was characterized by a series of decisions that emphasized limited government intervention in economic matters, the Supreme Court displayed a general reluctance to uphold legislation perceived as infringing upon the principles of free market capitalism and private contracts. This judicial approach had its roots in the Lochner v. New York decision of 1905, which struck down a state law regulating working conditions in bakeries on the grounds that it violated the freedom of contract.

When the New Deal legislation, championed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and passed by a Democrat-dominated Congress in the 1930s, began to come before the Supreme Court, it inevitably clashed with the entrenched Lochner era doctrine. Two notable cases that exemplify the Supreme Court's opposition to New Deal reforms are Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935) and United States v. Butler (1936).

In the Schechter case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against certain provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, a key component of the New Deal aimed at regulating industry and stabilizing the economy during the Great Depression. The Court's decision effectively undermined the government's ability to implement this particular reform, reflecting the justices' adherence to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and a distrust of extensive government intervention in economic affairs.

Similarly, in the Butler case, the Supreme Court invalidated certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, another cornerstone of the New Deal that sought to address agricultural overproduction and stabilize farm incomes. By striking down this legislation, the Court once again signaled its resistance to what it perceived as unwarranted government interference in private economic activities.

Central to the opposition to the New Deal from the Supreme Court was the ideological composition of the Court at the time. The presence of a group of conservative justices often referred to as the 'Four Horsemen'—who were known for their staunch opposition to New Deal reforms—and a swing justice who would occasionally align with them to secure a majority, meant that decisions unfavorable to the New Deal were more likely to prevail. In contrast, the three more liberal justices, dubbed the 'Three Musketeers', were often in the minority.

In conclusion, the resistance of the Supreme Court to the New Deal can be attributed to the prevailing Lochner era principles that prioritized limited government intervention in economic matters, as well as the ideological makeup of the Court at the time. The clash between the reform-minded policies of the New Deal and the conservative judicial philosophy of the era led to significant legal battles that shaped the course of American history during the Great Depression.