Editing Charles Evans Hughes (section)

===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>}}