Isabella Carter
In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to reform the Supreme Court by expanding its membership. This court-packing plan, as it came to be known, aimed to add one justice for each justice over the age of 70, allowing Roosevelt to appoint up to six new judges. The motivation behind this proposal was Roosevelt's desire to shape the ideological balance of the Court and secure favourable rulings for his New Deal legislation, which had previously been struck down by the Court as unconstitutional. While Roosevelt argued that the aging court needed assistance with its caseload, critics viewed the plan as a power grab that threatened the independence of the judiciary. The bill faced strong opposition and was never enacted, leading to a significant loss of political support for Roosevelt.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | 5 February 1937 |
| Proposer | Franklin D. Roosevelt |
| Aim | To expand the Supreme Court to gain favourable votes |
| Number of Justices Proposed | Six |
| Public Opinion | Unfavourable |
| Outcome | Defeated |
| Reason for Failure | Opposition from Chief Justice and Roosevelt's party members |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
FDR's motive to pack the court
Franklin D. Roosevelt's motive for packing the court was to gain favourable votes and rulings regarding his New Deal legislation, which the Supreme Court had previously ruled unconstitutional. Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 would have allowed the President to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices. This would have shifted the ideological balance of the Court in Roosevelt's favour, as he hoped to reverse the Court's previous rulings on his New Deal measures.
The Supreme Court, which had a conservative-leaning makeup, had struck down several of Roosevelt's New Deal measures as unconstitutional during his first term. Roosevelt's plan to expand the Court was an attempt to change this makeup by appointing new, additional justices who he believed would rule in his favour. This was seen as a politically motivated move by Roosevelt to gain control over the Court and ensure his legislative initiatives were not seen as exceeding the constitutional authority of the government.
The "court-packing plan", as it came to be known, was widely criticized and opposed by members of both parties, including Roosevelt's own Vice President, John Nance Garner. The plan was viewed as an attack on the independence of the judiciary and a dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle. Despite Roosevelt's efforts, including using his famous fireside chats to make his case to the American people, the plan ultimately failed to gain support and was defeated.
The Constitution and God: A Religious Reference?
You may want to see also
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, widely known as the "court-packing plan". The bill was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court to obtain favourable rulings on New Deal legislation that the Court had previously deemed unconstitutional. Roosevelt aimed to change the makeup of the court by appointing new justices, hoping they would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. The bill would have allowed the President to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices.
The public and the press generally opposed the bill. Gallup Polls conducted between February and May 1937 showed that the public opposed the proposal, with support averaging about 39%. Roosevelt attempted to garner support for the bill through his famous fireside chats via radio, arguing that his plan was not an attack on the court but rather sought to restore it to its rightful place in constitutional government. Despite these efforts, the bill faced strong opposition and was widely criticized as a blatant power grab.
The bill ultimately failed to pass, dealing a significant political blow to Roosevelt. The Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing report, calling the bill "a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle". Roosevelt's own party members and a crafty chief justice defeated his plan. The bill's failure exposed the limits of Roosevelt's ability to push forward legislation through direct public appeal. However, Roosevelt eventually succeeded in establishing a majority on the court that supported his New Deal legislation.
Congress' Checks: Limiting Executive Power
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's opposition to the New Deal
In 1935, the Supreme Court, sometimes referred to as the "nine old men", ruled against Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal on multiple occasions. One such decision declared the National Industrial Recovery Act, a primary New Deal effort to lift the country out of the Great Depression, as unconstitutional. The following year, the court also overturned some state reforms, such as New York's minimum-wage law for women. These rulings angered President Roosevelt, prompting him to attempt to reform the federal court system.
On February 5, 1937, Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, commonly referred to as the "court-packing plan", to Congress. The bill would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six new justices. Roosevelt's motive was to shift the ideological balance of the Court so that it would stop overturning his New Deal legislation.
The plan was met with instant opposition. Many viewed it as an attempt to stack the court with liberal justices, making it more political and undermining its independence. Roosevelt argued that the aging court needed more justices to help with its caseload, but no one doubted his true agenda. The bill was also criticised as an "invasion of judicial power" and an "abandonment of constitutional principle".
In March 1937, the Supreme Court upheld a state minimum-wage law, similar to one it had previously struck down. Shortly afterward, the Court also ruled as constitutional the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, key pieces of New Deal legislation. These decisions weakened the argument for adding younger, more liberal justices to the Supreme Court. By June 1937, the Judiciary Committee had sent a report with a negative recommendation to the full Senate, and the court-packing debate was tabled for good in July 1937.
While Roosevelt's court-packing plan was ultimately defeated, he did get to "pack" the court over time. Over his remaining three terms in office, he appointed eight new justices to the Supreme Court, and the "Roosevelt Court" took a more liberal direction in interpreting the Constitution.
Motherboard Physical Damage: MSI Repair and Prevention Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The public's response to the proposal
The public response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, commonly referred to as the "court-packing plan", was largely negative. The bill proposed to add one justice to the Supreme Court for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices. Roosevelt's motive was to shift the ideological balance of the Court so that it would stop striking down his New Deal legislation.
The bill was seen as a blatant attempt to "pack" the Court with partisan justices who would support Roosevelt's agenda. This perception was reinforced by a political cartoon depicting Roosevelt with six new judges likely to be his puppets. Gallup Polls conducted between February and May 1937 showed that the public opposed the bill by a fluctuating majority, with support averaging about 39%. The proposal was criticised as an "undemocratic power grab" and an "abandonment of constitutional principle".
However, Roosevelt initially earned some favourable press for his proposal, and he used one of his famous radio "fireside chats" to defend his plan. He argued that the aging court needed more justices to help with its caseload, stating that its members were "slow and infirm" and behind in their work. He also emphasised that he was not attacking the court but seeking to restore it to its rightful place in constitutional government.
Despite Roosevelt's efforts, public support for the plan was never strong and quickly dissipated due to various factors, including the retirement of a key conservative justice and the death of the bill's chief lobbyist in the Senate. In the end, Roosevelt lost significant political support for having proposed the bill, and it was never enacted by Congress.
The Police and Their Oath to Defend the Constitution
You may want to see also
The political aftermath
FDR's proposal to expand the Supreme Court was met with widespread opposition and criticism. The plan, known as the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, sought to add one justice for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices. This would have allowed FDR to appoint justices who supported his New Deal legislation, which had previously been struck down by the Supreme Court.
The public, members of Congress, and even some Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that it was an undemocratic power grab and an attempt to stack the court with partisan justices. Gallup Polls conducted between February and May 1937 showed that the public opposed the bill, with support averaging around 39%. The Senate Judiciary Committee also rejected the bill, calling it "a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle".
The failure of the court-packing plan dealt a humiliating political defeat to FDR and divided the New Deal coalition. It also gave ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. However, in the years that followed, the Supreme Court upheld virtually all of FDR's New Deal reforms. Over his remaining three terms in office, Roosevelt appointed eight new justices to the Supreme Court, effectively "packing" the court with his choices. This "Roosevelt Court" took a more liberal direction in interpreting the Constitution.
The controversy surrounding FDR's court-packing plan also raised questions about the independence of the Supreme Court and its separation from political influences. The debate sparked by FDR's proposal continues to shape discussions about the role and composition of the Supreme Court in the United States.
Oath of Office: A Constitutional Cornerstone
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
FDR proposed a law to add one justice to the Court for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices.
FDR's New Deal legislation was repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court. By packing the court, FDR hoped to shape the ideological balance of the Court so that it would cease striking down his New Deal legislation.
The U.S. Constitution does not define the Supreme Court's size, and Roosevelt believed it was within the power of Congress to change it. However, his plan was widely criticized as an attempt to stack the court and undermine its independence.
The public reaction to FDR's plan was generally negative. Gallup Polls conducted between February and May 1937 showed that a majority of the public opposed the proposed bill.
FDR's court-packing plan was never enacted by Congress, and he lost significant political support for having proposed it. However, over the span of his remaining three terms in office, Roosevelt appointed a total of eight new justices to the Supreme Court, effectively "packing" the court with justices of his choosing.
