United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States.[1] The decision itself concerned whether the processing taxes instituted by the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutional.[2]
Franklin Process Co. v. Hoosac Mills Corp., 8 F. Supp. 552 (D. Mass. 1934); reversed sub nom.Butler v. United States, 78 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1935); cert. granted, 296U.S. 561 (1935).
Holding
The Agricultural Adjustment Act is an unconstitutional exercise of power.
The main issue of the case was whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. The Act imposed a tax on processors of farm products, the proceeds of which to be paid to farmers who would reduce their area under cultivation and consequently their crops yields. The Act was intended to increase the prices of certain farm products by decreasing the supply of quantities produced. This increased the cotton price paid for Hoosac Mills in North Adams, Massachusetts who brought the case.
The Court held that the so-called tax was not a true tax[3] since the payments to farmers were coupled with unlawful and oppressively-coercive contracts,[3] and the proceeds were earmarked for the benefit of farmers complying with the prescribed conditions. The Court also held that making the payment of a government subsidy to a farmer conditional on the reduction of the planned crops went beyond the powers of the national government.[3]
The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.
Taxing and spending for general welfareedit
The Court struck down the Act but dealt positively with taxation and the expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The Court stated that the issue "presents the great and the controlling question in the case." After comparing expansive and restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted this philosophy:
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated[,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.... It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
The fact that the Court struck down the Act despite an expansive interpretation of the Spending Clause reflected the turmoil in the Court at the critical time.[3] It was accepted that Chief Justice Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was about to write a separate opinion to uphold the Act's subsidy provision and to strike down the Act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation, rather than a tax measure, until Roberts convinced Hughes that he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases on agriculture that involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.[3]
An indication that turmoil and the fact that Butler was a turning point in the Court's thinking is that in later jurisprudence, the case has been referenced to support expansion of authority under the Spending Clause (such as Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301U.S. 548 (1937), and Helvering v. Davis301U.S. 619 (1937)) and to dissent from such expansion (such as in South Dakota v. Dole, 483U.S. 203 (1987)), O’Connor dissenting. In her dissent, Justice O’Connor noted that Butler had been the last case in which the Supreme Court struck down an Act of Congress as an overextension of its spending power. That was part of a series of cases decided by the conservative Supreme Court of the time, which struck down as unconstitutional parts of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation.
^ abcdeHenretta, James A. (Spring 2006). "Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America". Law and History Review. 24 (1): 115–171. doi:10.1017/S0738248000002285. ISSN 1939-9022. S2CID 145114078.
Works related to United States v. Butler (297 U.S. 1) at Wikisource
Text of United States v. Butler, 297U.S. 1 (1936) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
February 16, 2024
united, states, butler, 1936, supreme, court, case, that, held, that, congress, only, power, taxes, level, necessary, carry, other, powers, enumerated, article, constitution, also, broad, authority, spend, general, welfare, united, states, decision, itself, co. United States v Butler 297 U S 1 1936 is a U S Supreme Court case that held that the U S Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U S Constitution but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States 1 The decision itself concerned whether the processing taxes instituted by the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutional 2 United States v ButlerSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 9 10 1935Decided January 6 1936Full case nameUnited States v Butler et al Citations297 U S 1 more 56 S Ct 312 80 L Ed 477 1936 U S LEXIS 946Case historyPriorFranklin Process Co v Hoosac Mills Corp 8 F Supp 552 D Mass 1934 reversed sub nom Butler v United States 78 F 2d 1 1st Cir 1935 cert granted 296 U S 561 1935 HoldingThe Agricultural Adjustment Act is an unconstitutional exercise of power Court membershipChief Justice Charles E Hughes Associate Justices Willis Van Devanter James C McReynoldsLouis Brandeis George SutherlandPierce Butler Harlan F StoneOwen Roberts Benjamin N CardozoCase opinionsMajorityRoberts joined by Hughes Van Devanter McReynolds Sutherland ButlerDissentStone joined by Brandeis CardozoLaws appliedU S Const amend X Agricultural Adjustment Act Contents 1 Tax for impermissible regulatory purpose 2 Taxing and spending for general welfare 3 See also 4 References 4 1 Footnotes 4 2 Works cited 5 External linksTax for impermissible regulatory purpose editThe main issue of the case was whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 conflicted with the U S Constitution The Act imposed a tax on processors of farm products the proceeds of which to be paid to farmers who would reduce their area under cultivation and consequently their crops yields The Act was intended to increase the prices of certain farm products by decreasing the supply of quantities produced This increased the cotton price paid for Hoosac Mills in North Adams Massachusetts who brought the case The Court held that the so called tax was not a true tax 3 since the payments to farmers were coupled with unlawful and oppressively coercive contracts 3 and the proceeds were earmarked for the benefit of farmers complying with the prescribed conditions The Court also held that making the payment of a government subsidy to a farmer conditional on the reduction of the planned crops went beyond the powers of the national government 3 Specifically Justice Roberts said The act invades the reserved rights of the states It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government The tax the appropriation of the funds raised and the direction for their disbursement are but parts of the plan They are but means to an unconstitutional end Taxing and spending for general welfare editThe Court struck down the Act but dealt positively with taxation and the expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution The Court stated that the issue presents the great and the controlling question in the case After comparing expansive and restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause the Court adopted this philosophy The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution The fact that the Court struck down the Act despite an expansive interpretation of the Spending Clause reflected the turmoil in the Court at the critical time 3 It was accepted that Chief Justice Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion s argument that the law s government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was about to write a separate opinion to uphold the Act s subsidy provision and to strike down the Act s tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation rather than a tax measure until Roberts convinced Hughes that he would side with him and the court s three liberal justices in future cases on agriculture that involved the Constitution s General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion 3 An indication that turmoil and the fact that Butler was a turning point in the Court s thinking is that in later jurisprudence the case has been referenced to support expansion of authority under the Spending Clause such as Steward Machine Company v Davis 301 U S 548 1937 and Helvering v Davis 301 U S 619 1937 and to dissent from such expansion such as in South Dakota v Dole 483 U S 203 1987 O Connor dissenting In her dissent Justice O Connor noted that Butler had been the last case in which the Supreme Court struck down an Act of Congress as an overextension of its spending power That was part of a series of cases decided by the conservative Supreme Court of the time which struck down as unconstitutional parts of U S President Franklin D Roosevelt s New Deal legislation See also editSchechter Poultry Corp v United States 1935 List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 297References editFootnotes edit Chemerinsky 2015 p 282 United States v Butler 297 U S 1 1936 a b c d e Henretta James A Spring 2006 Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America Law and History Review 24 1 115 171 doi 10 1017 S0738248000002285 ISSN 1939 9022 S2CID 145114078 Works cited edit Chemerinsky Erwin 2015 Constitutional Law Principles and Policies 5th ed New York Wolters Kluwer ISBN 978 1 4548 4947 6 External links edit nbsp Works related to United States v Butler 297 U S 1 at Wikisource Text of United States v Butler 297 U S 1 1936 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Butler amp oldid 1175151209, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
