U.S. Supreme Court SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR R. BOARD, 303 U.S. 453 (1938)

303 U.S. 453

SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. No. 536. Argued March 7, 1938. Decided March 28, 1938.[ Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. [Page 303 U.S. 453, 470]

In the Jones & Laughlin and companion cases, National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 301 U.S. 49, 57 S.Ct. 642, 630, 108 A.L.R. 1352, National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58, 57 S.Ct. 645, 630, 108 A.L. R. 1352, Associated Press v. National Labor Relation's Board, 301 U.S. 103, 57 S.Ct. 650, Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, four dissenting Justices thought the Court then departed from well- established principles followed in the Carter Case, and quoted (page 96 of 301 U.S., page 638 of 57 S.Ct.) a passage from it expounding what it meant by 'direct' effect on interstate commerce as distinguished from what is 'indirect.' And the dissenting opinion insisted (page 97 of 301 U.S., page 639 of 57 S.Ct.) that, under the Carter decision, the facts in those cases did not disclose any direct effect upon interstate commerce, and said: 'A more remote and indirect interference with interstate commerce or a more definite invasion of the powers reserved to the states is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine.'

But the dissent failed to elicit from the Court any statement as to whether it meant to overrule the Carter Case. The opinion does not discuss that case. It does, however, contain the following (page 41 of 301 U.S., page 626 of 57 S.Ct.): 'In the Carter Case ... the Court was of the opinion that the provisions of the statute relating to production were invalid upon several grounds,-that there was improper delegation of legislative power, and that the requirements not only what beyond any sustainable measure of protection of interstate commerce but were also inconsistent with due process. These (meaning the Schechter and Carter) cases are not controlling here.' The later decisions of this Court involving the power of Congress to deal with labor relations in local production do not refer to the Carter Case. At least until this Court definitely overrules that decision, it should be followed.

Upon the authority of that case, I would reverse the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that, as applied here, the act is unconstitutional.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS concurs in this opinion.