New State Ice Co V. Liebmann (1932)
• Context: Great Depression
• Oklahoma tried to reduce the number of people who produce ice to drive up the price:
create a monopoly
• “Francis: the business couldn’t go under the marginal cost or they would lose profit so
wont this not be a problem” Professor: “… sure…” Rob: “shut up Francis”
• Police Power used by the State because in the best interest of the public.
• Munn v. Illinois (1876) is the predecessor and the state used police power for interest of
public = it was ok because the sale of grain was affected by the public interest so the
private business can be regulated by state. This argument is discarded later because the
public interest can be found in every item so can’t be used.
• Majority says that it can’t do it because states cannot regulate private business and it is
not in public.
• Brandies dissent: we should let the state decide because we need to have the court do
less in the business in regulating the economy and allow experimentation to fix our
country. It was the first step to making court draw out of economy regulation business
Nebbia V. New York (1934)
• The heart of the great depression • New York established base price of which it can be sold = state regulated private
business: police power for the protection of the public interest.
• Nebbia argued 14 amendment and substantive due process on his right to set his own
• Rule of reason here: reasonable choice case by case kinda deal
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
• NRAgoal: to set prices everywhere nationally in order to set prices higher prices it would
bring about a rise in the economy in the future and create more jobs.
• Court ruled this unconstitutional because the president had the power to set prices (which
he doesn’t know anything about) and he doesn’t have that power = violates the separation
of powers. Fundamental violation.
• Government says they can regulate this because swift v. u.s. said that the federal