Editing Charles Evans Hughes (section)

==Chief Justice==
{{see also|Hughes Court|List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Hughes Court|Herbert Hoover Supreme Court candidates}}

===Rejoining the Supreme Court===
[[File:Charles Evans Hughes-TIME-1924.jpg|thumb|right|''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' cover, December 29, 1924]]
On February 3, 1930, President Hoover nominated Hughes to succeed Chief Justice Taft, who was gravely ill. Though many had expected Hoover to elevate his close friend, Associate Justice [[Harlan Stone]], Hughes was the top choice of Taft and Attorney General [[William D. Mitchell]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Abraham|2008|pp=156–157}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=174–175}}</ref> Though Hughes had compiled a progressive record during his tenure as an Associate Justice, by 1930 Taft believed that Hughes would be a consistent conservative on the court.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=27–28}}</ref> The nomination faced resistance from progressive Republicans such as senators [[George W. Norris]] and [[William E. Borah]], who were concerned that Hughes would be overly friendly to big business after working as a corporate lawyer.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1187–1188}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Wittes|2006|p=50}}</ref> Many of those progressives, as well some Southern states' rights advocates, were outraged by the [[Taft Court]]'s tendency to strike down state and federal legislation on the basis of the doctrine of [[substantive due process]] and feared that a Hughes Court would emulate the Taft Court.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=24–25, 30}}</ref> Adherents of the substantive due process doctrine held that economic regulations such as restrictions on child labor and minimum wages violated [[freedom of contract]], which, they argued, could not be abridged by federal and state laws because of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] and the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=193–195}}</ref>

The Senate Judiciary Committee held no hearings, and voted to favorably report on Hughes's nomination by a 10–2 vote on February 10, 1930.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR">{{cite web| last1=McMillion| first1=Barry J.| last2=Rutkus| first2=Denis Steven| date=July 6, 2018| title=Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President| url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211103024945/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf |archive-date=2021-11-03 |url-status=live| publisher=Congressional Research Service| location=Washington, D.C.| access-date=March 9, 2022}}</ref> On February 13, 1930, the Senate voted 31–49 against sending his nomination back to committee.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR" /><ref>{{cite web |title=TO RECOMMIT TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY THE NOMINATION&nbsp;... -- Senate Vote #174 – Feb 13, 1930 |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/71-2/s174 |website=GovTrack.us |access-date=13 March 2022 |language=en}}</ref> After a brief but bitter confirmation battle, Hughes was confirmed by the Senate on February 13, 1930, in a 52–26 vote,<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR" /><ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Abraham|2008|pp=157–158}}</ref> and he took his judicial oath of office on February 24, 1930.<ref name="SCOTUSjustices" /> Hughes's son, Charles Jr., was subsequently forced to resign as [[Solicitor General of the United States|Solicitor General]] after his father took office as Chief Justice.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Parrish|2002|p=10}}</ref> Hughes quickly emerged as a leader of the Court, earning the admiration of his fellow justices for his intelligence, energy, and strong understanding of the law.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=194}}</ref> Shortly after Hughes was confirmed, Hoover nominated federal judge [[John J. Parker]] to succeed deceased Associate Justice [[Edward Terry Sanford]]. The Senate rejected Parker, whose earlier rulings had alienated labor unions and the [[NAACP]], but confirmed Hoover's second nominee, [[Owen Roberts]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Parrish|2002|pp=11–12}}</ref> In early 1932, the other justices asked Hughes to request the resignation of Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose health had declined as he entered his nineties. Hughes privately asked his old friend to retire, and Holmes immediately sent a letter of resignation to President Hoover. To replace Holmes, Hoover nominated [[Benjamin N. Cardozo]], who quickly won confirmation.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=200–201}}</ref>

The early Hughes Court was divided between the conservative "[[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|Four Horsemen]]" and the liberal "[[Three Musketeers (Supreme Court)|Three Musketeers]]".{{efn|After the appointment of Benjamin Cardozo, the liberal bloc consisted of Cardozo, Harlan Stone, and Louis Brandeis. The conservative bloc consisted of [[Willis Van Devanter]], [[James Clark McReynolds]], [[George Sutherland]], and [[Pierce Butler (justice)|Pierce Butler]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=181–186, 246}}</ref>}}<ref name="L11881189" /> The primary difference between these two blocs was that the Four Horsemen embraced the substantive due process doctrine, but the liberals, including [[Louis Brandeis]], advocated for [[judicial restraint]], or deference to legislative bodies.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=30–31}}</ref> Hughes and Roberts were the swing justices between the two blocs for much of the 1930s.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Henretta|2006|p=149}}</ref>[[File:Mrs Antoinette Carter.jpg|thumb|right|Antoinette Carter Hughes]]In one of the first major cases of his tenure, Hughes joined with Roberts and the Three Musketeers to strike down a piece of state legislation in the 1931 landmark case of ''[[Near v. Minnesota]]''. In his majority opinion, Hughes held that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] barred states from violating [[freedom of the press]]. Hughes also wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Stromberg v. California]]'', which represented the first time the Supreme Court struck down a state law on the basis of the [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights]].{{efn|Justice [[Edward Terry Sanford]] had laid out the doctrine of incorporation in the majority opinion of the 1925 case of ''[[Gitlow v. New York]]''.<ref name="L11881189"/>}}<ref name="L11881189">{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1188–1189}}</ref> In another early case, ''[[O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.]]'', Hughes and Roberts joined with the liberal bloc in upholding a state regulation that limited commissions for the sale of fire insurance.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=194–195}}</ref>

===Roosevelt takes office===
During [[Presidency of Herbert Hoover|Hoover's presidency]], the country plunged into the [[Great Depression in the United States|Great Depression]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=186}}</ref> As the country faced an ongoing economic calamity, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] decisively defeated Hoover in the [[1932 United States presidential election|1932 presidential election]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|p=37}}</ref> Responding to the [[Great Depression in the United States|Great Depression]], Roosevelt passed a bevy of domestic legislation as part of his [[New Deal]] domestic program, and the response to the New Deal became one of the key issues facing the Hughes Court. In the [[Gold Clause Cases]], a series of cases that presented some of the first major tests of New Deal laws, the Hughes Court upheld the voiding of the "gold clauses" in private and public contracts that was favored by the Roosevelt administration.<ref name="L11891192"/> Roosevelt, who had expected the Supreme Court to rule adversely to his administration's position, was elated by the outcome, writing that "as a lawyer it seems to me that the Supreme Court has at last definitely put human values ahead of the 'pound of flesh' called for by a contract."<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=254–257}}</ref> The Hughes Court also continued to adjudicate major cases concerning the states. In the 1934 case of ''[[Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell]]'', Hughes and Roberts joined the Three Musketeers in upholding a Minnesota law that established a moratorium on mortgage payments.<ref name="L11891192">{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1189–1192}}</ref> Hughes's majority opinion in that case stated that "while an emergency does not create power, an emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power."<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=246–247}}</ref>[[File:Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.jpg|thumb|Portrait of Hughes as Chief Justice]]Beginning with the 1935 case of ''[[Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co.]]'', Roberts started siding with the Four Horsemen, creating a majority bloc that struck down New Deal laws.<ref name="L1192"/> The court held that Congress had, in passing an act that provided a mandatory retirement and pension system for railroad industry workers, violated due process and exceeded the regulatory powers granted to it by the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=257–258}}</ref> Hughes strongly criticized Roberts's majority opinion in his dissent, writing that "the power committed to Congress to govern interstate commerce does not require that its government should be wise, much less that it be perfect. The power implies a broad discretion."<ref name="L1192"/> Nonetheless, in May 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down three New Deal laws. Writing the majority opinion in ''[[A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States]]'', Hughes held that Roosevelt's [[National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933]] was doubly unconstitutional, falling afoul of both the Commerce Clause and the [[nondelegation doctrine]].<ref name="L1192">{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1192–1193}}</ref>

In the 1936 case of ''[[United States v. Butler]]'', Hughes surprised many observers by joining with Roberts and the Four Horsemen in striking down the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1193–1194}}</ref> In doing so, the court dismantled the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the major New Deal agricultural program.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=273–274, 282}}</ref> In another 1936 case, ''[[Carter v. Carter Coal Co.]]'', the Supreme Court struck down the [[Guffey Coal Act]], which regulated the [[bituminous coal]] industry. Hughes wrote a concurring opinion in ''Carter'' in which he agreed with the majority's holding that Congress could not use its Commerce Clause powers to "regulate activities and relations within the states which affect interstate commerce only indirectly." In the final case of the 1936 term, ''Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo'', Roberts joined with the Four Horsemen in striking down New York's minimum wage law.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|p=1195}}</ref> President Roosevelt had held up the New York minimum wage law as a model for other states to follow, and many Republicans as well as Democrats attacked the decision for interfering with the states.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=289–291}}</ref> In December 1936, the court handed down its near-unanimous opinion in ''[[United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.]]'', upholding a law that granted the president the power to place an arms embargo on [[Bolivia]] and [[Paraguay]]. Justice Sutherland's majority opinion, which Hughes joined, explained that the Constitution had granted the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=303}}</ref>

===Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937===
[[File:Erich Salomon - The Supreme Court, 1932.jpg|alt=The Court seated|thumb|upright=1.2|The [[Hughes Court]] in 1932, photographed by [[Erich Salomon]]]]

Roosevelt won re-election in a landslide in the [[1936 United States presidential election|1936 presidential election]], and congressional Democrats grew their majorities in both houses of Congress.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=298}}</ref> As the Supreme Court had already struck down both the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the president feared that the court would next strike down other key New Deal laws, including the [[National Labor Relations Act of 1935]] (also known as the Wagner Act) and the [[Social Security Act]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=306}}</ref> In early 1937, Roosevelt proposed to increase the number of Supreme Court seats through the [[Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937]] (also known as the "court-packing plan"). Roosevelt argued that the bill was necessary because Supreme Court justices were unable to meet their case load. With large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Roosevelt's bill had a strong chance of passage in early 1937.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1196–1197}}</ref> However, the bill was poorly received by the public, as many saw the bill as power grab or as an attack on a sacrosanct institution.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=316–318}}</ref> Hughes worked behind the scenes to defeat the effort, rushing important New Deal legislation through the Supreme Court in an effort to quickly uphold the constitutionality of the laws.<ref name="shesol394397">{{harvnb|ps=.|Shesol|2010|pp=394–397}}</ref> He also sent a letter to Senator [[Burton K. Wheeler]], asserting that the Supreme Court was fully capable of handling its case load. Hughes's letter had a powerful impact in discrediting Roosevelt's argument about the practical need for more Supreme Court justices.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1196–1198}}</ref>

While the debate over the court-packing plan continued, the Supreme Court upheld, in a 5–4 vote, the state of Washington's minimum wage law in the case of ''[[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish]]''. Joined by the Three Musketeers and Roberts, Hughes wrote the majority opinion,<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1198–1199}}</ref> which overturned the 1923 case of ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]''.<ref name="Kalman 2005 1052–1053">{{harvnb|ps=.|Kalman|2005|pp=1052–1053}}</ref> In his majority opinion, Hughes wrote that the "Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract", and further held that the Washington legislature "was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the 'sweating system,' the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living."<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=325–327}}</ref> Because Roberts had previously sided with the four conservative justices in ''Tipaldo'', a similar case, it was widely perceived that Roberts agreed to uphold the constitutionality of minimum wage as a result of the pressure that was put on the Supreme Court by the court-packing plan (a theory referred to as "[[the switch in time that saved nine]]").<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|McKenna|2002|p=419}}</ref> However, Hughes and Roberts both later indicated that Roberts had committed to changing his judicial stance on state minimum wage law months before Roosevelt announced his court-packing plan.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Kalman|2005|p=1054}}</ref> Roberts had [[rule of four|voted]] to grant ''[[Writ of certiorari|certiorari]]'' to hear the ''Parrish'' case even before the 1936 presidential election, and oral arguments for the case had taken place in late 1936.<ref name=uopqpvz32>{{harvnb|ps=.|McKenna|2002|pp=412–413}}</ref> In an initial conference vote held on December 19, 1936, Roberts had voted to uphold the law.<ref name="McKenna414">{{harvnb|ps=.|McKenna|2002|p=414}}</ref> Scholars continue to debate why Roberts essentially switched his vote with regards to state minimum wage laws, but Hughes may have played an important role in influencing Roberts to uphold the law.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1198–1200}}</ref>

Weeks after the court handed down its decision in ''Parrish'', Hughes wrote for the majority again in ''[[NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.]]'' Joined by Roberts and the Three Musketeers, Hughes upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act case marked a turning point for the Supreme Court, as the court began a pattern of upholding New Deal laws.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Leuchtenburg|2005|pp=1200–1201}}</ref> Later in 1937, the court upheld both the old age benefits and the taxation system established by the Social Security Act. Meanwhile, conservative Associate Justice [[Willis Van Devanter]] announced his retirement, undercutting Roosevelt's arguments for the necessity of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=334–336}}</ref> By the end of the year, the court-packing plan had died in the Senate, and Roosevelt had been dealt a serious political wound that emboldened the [[conservative coalition]] of Southern Democrats and Republicans.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Kalman|2005|p=1057}}</ref> However, throughout 1937, Hughes had presided over a massive shift in jurisprudence that marked the end of the [[Lochner era]], a period during which the Supreme Court had frequently struck down state and federal economic regulations.<ref name="Kalman 2005 1052–1053"/> [[Hugo Black]], Roosevelt's nominee to succeed Van Devanter, was confirmed by the Senate in August 1937.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=345–347}}</ref> He was joined by [[Stanley Forman Reed]], who succeeded Sutherland, the following year, leaving pro-New Deal liberals with a majority on the Supreme Court.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=357}}</ref>{{efn|[[Felix Frankfurter]] and [[William O. Douglas]] also joined the court in 1939, succeeding Cardozo and Brandeis, respectively.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=363–364}}</ref>}}

===Later tenure===
[[File:Face detail, Douglas dons robes of Supreme Court Justice. Washington, D.C., April 17. William Orville Douglas, 40 year old successor to retired Justice Louis D. Brandeis, today donned the robes of an LCCN2016875459 (cropped).tif|thumb|Associate Justice [[William O. Douglas]] served alongside Hughes on the Supreme Court]]
After 1937, the Hughes Court continued to uphold economic regulations, with McReynolds and Butler often being the lone dissenters.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=357–358, 364}}</ref> The liberal bloc was strengthened even further in 1940, when Butler was succeeded by another Roosevelt appointee, [[Frank Murphy]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=375}}</ref> In the case of ''[[United States v. Carolene Products Co.]]'', Justice Stone's majority opinion articulated a broad theory of deference to economic regulations. ''Carolene Products'' established that the Supreme Court would conduct a "[[rational basis review]]" of economic regulations, meaning that the Court would only strike down a regulation if legislators lacked a "rational basis" for passing the regulation. The Supreme Court showed that it would defer to state legislators in the cases of ''Madden v. Kentucky'' and ''[[Olsen v. Nebraska]]''.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Ross|2007|pp=141–142}}</ref> Hughes joined the majority in another case, ''[[United States v. Darby Lumber Co.]]'', which upheld the [[Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938]].<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Ross|2007|pp=150–151}}</ref>

The Hughes Court also faced several civil rights cases. Hughes wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada]]'', which required the state of Missouri to either integrate its law school or establish a separate law school for African-Americans.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=358–359}}</ref> He joined and helped arrange unanimous support for Black's majority opinion in ''[[Chambers v. Florida]]'', which overturned the conviction of a defendant who had been coerced into confessing a crime.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=373–374}}</ref> In the 1940 case of ''[[Minersville School District v. Gobitis]]'', Hughes joined the majority decision, which held that public schools could require students to salute the [[American flag]] despite the students' religious objections to these practices.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=374–376}}</ref>

Hughes began to consider retiring in 1940, partly due to the declining health of his wife. In June 1941, he informed Roosevelt of his impending retirement.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|pp=382–386}}</ref> Hughes suggested that Roosevelt elevate Stone to the position of Chief Justice, a suggestion that Roosevelt accepted.<ref>{{harvnb|ps=.|Simon|2012|p=387}}</ref> Hughes retired in 1941, and Stone was confirmed as the new Chief Justice, beginning the [[Stone Court (judges)|Stone Court]].