Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US (1935) and Separation of Powers in the Second Trump Administration

Caption: Photo by Mark Schiefelbein

By Weilson Geng on April 4th, 2025

At the height of the Great Depression in June 1933, as unemployment soared to 25% and prices and productivity had fallen by 2/3 since 1929, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the groundbreaking National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), establishing the National Recovery Administration (NRA). The goal of this agency was to aid economic recovery by creating over 500 “codes of fair competition” that controlled production, prices, and wages across industries. While Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution states that only Congress, or the legislative branch, can make laws, the NRA, part of the executive branch, was able to circumvent this. According to Supreme Court expert Tony Mauro, once created, NRA codes had the power of federal laws without being passed by Congress. While Roosevelt and his supporters argued that increased federal power was necessary for economic recovery, they were quickly met with protest from business owners and conservative politicians, who criticized it as a radical overstep in federal authority. 

Suspecting that the NRA codes were unconstitutional, the Department of Justice (DOJ) set about finding an appropriate case to bring to the Supreme Court for judicial review, the process to determine whether actions of the government are constitutional. One code in particular set a minimum wage, maximum work week, and several health regulations on the New York poultry industry. The DOJ accused Schechter Poultry Corporation of violating this code by paying workers below minimum wage and selling thousands of diseased chickens, a case that was then brought to the Supreme Court. The federal government invoked the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, arguing that since the chickens came from outside of New York state, Schechter was engaging in interstate commerce and fell under federal regulations. Schechter denied this, claiming that it was not engaging in interstate commerce at all. The justices unanimously voted on the side of Schechter Poultry Corp., and in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Hughes, he discusses separation of powers, the commerce clause, and the due process clause. This piece will examine his first argument regarding separation of powers.

Separation of powers is the concept of separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches within a government that perform separate duties. In the United States, the purpose of the executive branch, which includes the president and federal agencies, is to enforce laws; the purpose of the legislative branch, or Congress, is to create laws; the purpose of the judicial branch, which includes the Supreme Court, is to ensure that all laws follow the constitution. Additionally, each branch has the ability to “check” the other two to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. 

In the majority opinion, Hughes states that “Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President,” describing the NRA codes as having “no support in the decisions upon which the government especially relies,” and “without precedent.” In other words, the Supreme Court found the NRA codes to be unconstitutional because they were effectively laws created by the executive branch when only Congress is allowed to create laws. Hughes further states that “the code-making authority thus conferred is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power,” reinforcing the concept of separation of powers by stating that not only could each branch not perform functions of the other branches, but they could not be transferred between branches either. The majority opinion concludes that “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But… Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.” What this means is that even during emergencies, such as economic depression or war, the separation of powers must remain in place. This decision struck down the broader NRA and NIRA and set a precedent for many of Roosevelt’s other programs to be ruled unconstitutional as well. Along with Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), another case concerning the NIRA, Schechter has been cited in over seventy other Supreme Court cases.

Recently, President Trump has been criticized for violating the separation of powers in what some have labeled a “constitutional crisis.” According to the Associated Press, Trump’s recent efforts “placing thousands of USAID workers on leave” and seeking to end birthright citizenship have already been blocked by federal judges. The Trump Administration has also tried to reduce federal spending, a power that legal experts state belongs solely to Congress. Similar to in Schechter, some have interpreted the executive branch’s recent actions as attempting to assume legislative power, such as by repealing the constitutional right to birthright citizenship and change fiscal policy, or government taxation and spending. In fact, Vice President JD Vance has directly criticized separation of powers, stating that, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Politicians that have been supportive of the Trump Administration include Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota, who believes that Trump is “testing the limits of his power.” However, the Schechter decision shows the power of the separation of powers system to regulate itself. After all, it was created for exactly this purpose: to prevent one branch from becoming so powerful that it controls the other two. Members of the judicial branch has already jumped into action by blocking some of Trump’s actions and suing the Trump Administration for violating federal law. While comparisons can be drawn between Roosevelt and Trump’s actions, it is not yet clear how the actions of the second Trump Administration will hold up under judicial review.

References

Colvin, Jill, and Darlene Superville. "Vance and Musk Question the Authority of the Courts as Trump's Agenda Faces Legal Pushback." Associated Press News, Associated Press, 9 Feb. 2025, apnews.com/article/trump-judiciary-musk-separation-of-powers-balance-checks-069c169ea1ddf6eea76f502d544c4c16. Accessed 17 Mar. 2025.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "separation of powers." Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Feb. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/separation-of-powers. Accessed 17 March 2025. Copy Citation

"Great Depression Facts." Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, www.fdrlibrary.org/great-depression-facts#:~:text=Factories%20were%20shut%20down%2C%20farms,a%20seemingly%20never%2Dending%20cycle. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.

Jarratt-Ziemski, Karen L. "Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court, by David Schultz, 2nd ed., Facts on File, 2021, pp. 1412-13. Facts on File Library of American History. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX8338600001/GVRL?u=wash_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=0ad5e7f8.

Mauro, Tony. "Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States." Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court, 2nd ed., CQ Press, 2005, pp. 49-51. ProQuest Ebook Central, ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/washington/detail.action?docID=419573.

"National Industrial Recovery Act (1933)." National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 8 Feb. 2022, www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/national-industrial-recovery-act. Accessed 17 Mar. 2025.