The Four Horsemen and the Court vs Roosevelt

The early 20th century was a time of economic turmoil in the US. There were very high moments during the country's economic history. A notable example of this was clearly the "Roaring 20's", a time of economic prosperity and general content and positive outlook for the future of the US, economic and otherwise. However, there were also low points of economic recession. Of course, the greatest one of those low points was the Great Depression, which ended up plunging the US into economic downfall and eliminated jobs across the country. Within the government, there was a major clash as to how to address the economic problems of the country. Most notably, this clash occurred within the Supreme Court against Roosevelt.

The Supreme Court was a complex organism at this time comprising of many different opinions and groups. On the liberal side, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone held down the liberal beliefs of the Court. During the time of the economic turmoil, they sided with Roosevelt in supporting his New Deal. They, like Roosevelt, advocated for more government power and control during this time to attempt to lift the country out of the hole that it had fallen into. The New Deal and its various policies were seen as a positive.

In the middle of things stood the two swing votes, Charles Hughes and Owen Roberts. These two held the votes that often decided the very split decisions. Owen Roberts, the Hoover-appointed justice, had a tendency to take a conservative stance on things. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, this nearly always gave the conservatives, and the Four Horsemen, the majority.

On the conservative side of things was the Four Horsemen, a band of 4 conservative justices who attempted to stand together to combat any of the New Deal policies that interfered too much with business. Their names were: Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter" They were very pro-business and did not feel that too much economic regulation and interference was needed, much to Roosevelt's chagrin. They were able to void some of his acts like the AAA at first, which caused him to grow vastly angry with them. They were attempting to conduct the strategy of making conservative decisions on other cases in order to set the precedents that would declare much of the New Deal unconstitutional. Their decisions, such as the one regarding the AAA, were unpopular across the nation as well. Farmers recall hanging up effigies of the justices from a tree, signaling the discontent with the destruction of the jobs Roosevelt created.

However, eventually, Roosevelt was able to get his way. After this ordeal, Roosevelt announced a court-packing scheme in which he would create new seats to fill with liberals and to swing the balance in his favor. However, fearing the negative repercussions of this, the Court conceded and voted in favor of the minimum wage in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (5-4), indicating a shift in the majority. The minimum wage went against the liberty of contract of the Horsemen, but it still passed.

In a way, this battle set the precedent of the president's executive power and how it was able to exercise influence over the Supreme Court regardless of the situation. It was a turning point in which Roosevelt was able to get his way more easily in regards to the New Deal, whether or not it was effective. The shift had caused them, in addition, to lose some semblance of power over the president and his policies. In addition, now, the Horsemen were searching for a new issue to take a stance on now that the economic policy had been locked up more or less.

Src:

“The Supreme Court: A New Kind of Justice”

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2012/01/22/the-four-horsemen-of-the-supreme-court-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/

Ball, Howard. Hugo L. Black: Cold Steel Warrior. Oxford University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-19-507814-4. Page 90.