WHY IT MATTERED
The 1935 Wagner Act was one of the most important
pieces of New Deal legislation. Conservative justices
on the Supreme Court, however, thought New Deal
legislation increased the power of the federal govern-
ment beyond what the Constitution allowed. By the
time the Jones and Laughlin case reached the Court in
1937, the Court had already struck down numerous
New Deal laws. It appeared to many as if the Wagner
Act was doomed.
In February 1937, Roosevelt announced a plan to
appoint enough justices to build a Court majority in
favor of the New Deal. Critics immediately accused
Roosevelt of trying to pack the Supreme Court, thus
crippling the Constitution’s system of checks and bal-
ances.
Two months later, the Court delivered its opinion
in Jones and Laughlin and at about the same time
upheld other New Deal legislation as well. Most histo-
rians agree that the Court’s switch was not a response
to Roosevelt’s “Court-packing” plan, which already
seemed destined for failure. Nevertheless, the decision
resolved a potential crisis.
HISTORICAL IMPACT
The protection that labor unions gained by the
Wagner Act helped them to grow quickly. Union mem-
bership among non-farm workers grew from around
12 percent in 1930 to around 31 percent by 1950. This
increase helped improve the economic standing of
many working-class Americans in the years following
World War II.
Most significantly, Jones and Laughlin greatly broad-
ened Congress’s power. Previously, neither the federal
nor the state governments were thought to have suffi-
cient power to control the large corporations and hold-
ing companies doing business in many states. Now, far
beyond the power to regulate interstate commerce,
Congress had the power to regulate anything “essential
or appropriate” to that function. For example, federal
laws barring discrimination in hotels and restaurants
rest on the Court’s allowing Congress to decide what is
an “essential or appropriate” subject of regulation.
More recently, the Court has placed tighter limits
on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck
down a law that banned people from having hand-
guns near a school. The Court said Congress was not
justified in basing this law on its power to regulate
interstate commerce.
The New Deal 709
Choosing to work despite
the strike, a storekeeper
at the Jones and Laughlin
Steel Corporation tries to
pass through picket lines.
THINKING CRITICALLY
THINKING CRITICALLY
CONNECT TO HISTORY
1. Developing Historical Perspective
Lawyers for Jones
and Laughlin said that the Wagner Act violated the Tenth
Amendment. Chief Justice Hughes said that since the act
fell within the scope of the commerce clause, the Tenth
Amendment did not apply. Read the Tenth Amendment
and then write a paragraph defending Hughes’s position.
SEE SKILLBUILDER HANDBOOK, PAGE R11.
CONNECT TO TODAY
2.
Visit the links for Historic Decisions of the Supreme Court
and read the opening sections of United States v. Lopez.
There, Chief Justice Rehnquist offers a summary of the
Court’s interpretation of the commerce clause over the
years. Summarize in your own words Rehnquist’s descrip-
tion of the current meaning of the commerce clause.
IINTERNET ACTIVITY
CLASSZONE.COM
▼
