| Gold Clause Cases | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued January 8–10, 1935 Decided February 18, 1935 |
||||||
| Full case name | Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co; United States v. Bankers Trust Co.; Nortz v. United States; Perry v. United States |
|||||
| Citations | 294 U.S. 240 (more) 55 S. Ct. 407; 79 L. Ed. 885; 1935 U.S. LEXIS 257; 95 A.L.R. 1352 |
|||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Congress has power expressly to prohibit and invalidate contracts, although previously made and valid when made, when they interfere with carrying out any monetary policy Congress is free to adopt. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Hughes, joined by Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo | |||||
| Concurrence | Stone | |||||
| Dissent | McReynolds, joined by Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 5.; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18. |
||||||
The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld restrictions on the ownership of gold implemented by the administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to fight the Great Depression. The cases were Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. and United States v. Bankers Trust Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935); Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935); and Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935).
Contents |
Background
Within the first week of holding office, Roosevelt closed the nation's banks, fearing gold hording and international speculation posed a danger to the national monetary system, basing his actions on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.[1] Congress quickly ratified Roosevelt's action with the Emergency Banking Act. The President soon afterward issued Executive Order 6102, confiscating all gold coins, bullion, and certificates, requiring they be surrendered to the government by May 1, 1933 in exchange for currency. Congress also passed a joint resolution canceling all gold clauses in public and private contracts, stating such clauses interfered with the Congress's power to regulate U.S. currency.
While the Roosevelt administration waited for the court to return its judgment, contingency plans were made for an unfavorable ruling.[2] Ideas floated about the White House to withdraw the right to sue the government to enforce gold clauses.[2] Attorney General Homer Cummings opined the court should be immediately packed to ensure a favorable ruling.[2] Roosevelt himself ordered the Treasury to manipulate the market as to make it appear in turmoil, though Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau refused.[2] Roosevelt also drew up executive orders to close all stock exchanges and prepared a radio address to the public.[2]
Opinion of the court
All three cases were announced on February 18, 1935, and all in favor of the government's position by a narrow 5–4 majority.[2] Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the opinion for each case, finding the government's power to regulate money a plenary power. As such, the abrogation of contractual gold clauses, both public and private, were within the reach of congressional authority when such clauses presented a threat to Congress's control of the monetary system.[2] Of note was Hughes's opinion in the Perry case: in a judicial tongue-lashing not seen since Marbury v. Madison,[3] Hughes chided Congress for its immoral—though legal—act.[4] However, Hughes ultimately found the plaintiff had no cause of action, and thus no standing to sue the government.[5]
Subsequent events
The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 abrogated gold clauses in government and private contracts and changed the value of the dollar in gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. This price remained until August 15, 1971 when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus abandoning the gold standard for foreign exchange (see Nixon Shock).
The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars and certificates by an act of Congress codified in Pub.L. 93-373 [1] [2] which went into effect December 31, 1974. Pub.L. 93-373 does not repeal the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933, which makes unlawful any contracts which specify payment in a fixed amount of money or a fixed amount of gold. That is, contracts are unenforceable if they use gold monetarily rather than as a commodity of trade. However, the Act of October 28, 1977, Pub.L. 95-147, § 4(c),[6] amended the 1933 Joint Resolution and made it clear that parties could again include so-called gold clauses in contracts formed after 1977.[7]
References
Notes
- ^ Wilson, Thomas Frederick (1992). The Power "to Coin" Money: The Exercise of Monetary Powers by the Congress. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. p. 209. http://books.google.com/books?id=VIAbb1cKqp4C.
- ^ a b c d e f g McKenna, at 56–66.
- ^ 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
- ^ Urofsky, at 676–78.
- ^ Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 354 (1935). “The action is for breach of contract. As a remedy for breach, plaintiff can recover no more than the loss he has suffered and of which he may rightfully complain. He is not entitled to be enriched.”
- ^ See: 91 Stat. 1227, 1229 (originally codified at 31 U.S.C. § 463; note: recodified as amended at 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d)(2)).
- ^ http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0322p-06.pdf
Sources
- Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 2 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195126372.
- McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823221547.
 |
This article relating to law in the United States, or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
