Judicial Reorganization or Court Packing?
On February 5, 1937 (75 years ago today), President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first told the nation about his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, legislation that would come to be known by its opponents as the "court-packing plan". The plan was to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional. The most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.
Roosevelt tried this tactic because, during his first term, the Supreme Court had struck down several of FDR's "New Deal" measures intended to help economic recovery during the Great Depression. Supporters of the New Deal believed that a majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt wanted to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench. His opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, and they called it the "court-packing plan".
The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject of one of Roosevelt's Fireside chats on March 9, 1937. But as it turned out, the legislation wasn't necessary. Roosevelt's threat to do this was enough. Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his perceived about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His move came to be called "the switch in time that saved nine." Technically however, Roberts had actually cast his vote before the legislation was announced.
Roosevelt still pressed on with the legislation, but his initiative failed due to adverse public opinion, the retirement of one Supreme Court Justice, and the unexpected and sudden death of the legislation's U.S. Senate champion: Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. However circumstances ultimately allowed Roosevelt to prevail in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal agenda.
Here is a YouTube video of a portion of FDR's "fireside chat" in which he made his pitch to the nation for his court-packing plan:
Roosevelt tried this tactic because, during his first term, the Supreme Court had struck down several of FDR's "New Deal" measures intended to help economic recovery during the Great Depression. Supporters of the New Deal believed that a majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt wanted to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench. His opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, and they called it the "court-packing plan".
The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject of one of Roosevelt's Fireside chats on March 9, 1937. But as it turned out, the legislation wasn't necessary. Roosevelt's threat to do this was enough. Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his perceived about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His move came to be called "the switch in time that saved nine." Technically however, Roberts had actually cast his vote before the legislation was announced.
Roosevelt still pressed on with the legislation, but his initiative failed due to adverse public opinion, the retirement of one Supreme Court Justice, and the unexpected and sudden death of the legislation's U.S. Senate champion: Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. However circumstances ultimately allowed Roosevelt to prevail in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal agenda.
Here is a YouTube video of a portion of FDR's "fireside chat" in which he made his pitch to the nation for his court-packing plan: