Why did Congress reject Roosevelt's court-packing plan?

Answer 1

Both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing plan because it was unconstitutional. The Senate referred the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 (aka the Court-Packing Plan) to the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 70-20. The Bill died in committee.

More Information

Court-packing is an attempt by the sitting President to override checks and balances by nominating many members of his (or her) own party to the Supreme Court and/or other federal courts. This action skews decisions to accommodate the President's agenda, and violates the separation of powers established by the Constitution.

In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted a bill for Congress titled the "Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937," which became popularly known as the "Court-packing Plan," for Roosevelt's attempt to add as many as six new Justices to the Supreme Court.

Under the Constitution, Supreme Court justices can not be removed for disagreeing with the President. Nor do they have a mandatory retirement age. So the "nine old men," as Roosevelt called them, could not be displaced. Roosevelt devised a scheme* to circumvent this constitutional provision by proposing to appoint one new justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70.5, to a maximum of six. This would have increased the size of the Court from nine to fifteen.

Roosevelt's intent was to override the majority on the Supreme Court by appointing liberal justices who supported the New Deal, and shifting the Court's ideology from conservative to liberal.

Very few people, including most members of Roosevelt's own Democratic party, supported the plan because they recognized it would give near-dictatorial power to the Executive Branch (President Roosevelt) by allowing him to control two of the three branches of government. The plan violated the Constitution's separation of powers and would have destroyed the Judicial Branch's independence.

Roosevelt's plan also attempted to override Congress' constitutional authority to set the size of the Supreme Court, another violation of the separation of powers that would set a dangerous precedent for the future.

Both parties in Congress recognized Roosevelt's plan was unconstitutional. The Senate voted 70-20 to refer Roosevelt's Bill to the Judiciary Committee for review, and the Bill died in committee. This allowed Congress to enforce the separation of powers without directly confronting the President.

* Ironically, the plan was originally conceived by Justice James C. McReynolds in 1914, when he was US Attorney General. When Roosevelt proposed the court-packing plan, McReynolds, at 75 years old, was one of the elderly, conservative justices who strongly opposed the New Deal. Had Congress allowed Roosevelt's Bill to pass, McReynolds would have been indirectly responsible for ending the Court's independence and ceding power to the liberals.

Answer 2

Many believed President Roosevelt's plan was an abuse of Executive power and would have undermined the independence of the Judiciary branch.

Explanation

In 1937, President Roosevelt drafted a Judiciary Reorganization Bill in response to his frustration with the US Supreme Court overturning many of his New Deal programs. The bill sought to modernize the federal court system, in general, but its main focus was on diluting the power of the conservative justices on the court, whom Roosevelt considered obstructionists. Roosevelt proposed adding one new justice for each justice over the age of 70.5 (six months beyond the age they qualified for retirement benefits), up to a maximum of six new justices. Roosevelt intended to place New Deal supporters on the bench, a move that would have undermined the independence of the Judiciary branch, nearly making it an extension of the Executive branch.

Roosevelt announced his plan to Congress on February 5, 1937. He began his campaign with a political blunder by failing to discuss the proposed resolution with the House of Representatives in advance, bypassing the traditional method of introducing legislation originating in the Executive branch. This virtually guaranteed the House would reject the resolution, which quickly became evident when the House Judiciary Committee began making revisions.

Roosevelt decided it would be prudent to move the plan to the Senate, where he had the support of fellow Democrat Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson.

His next misstep was an attempt to garner public support by discussing the Judiciary Reorganization Plan of 1937 in one of his popular "Fireside Chats" on March 9, 1937. Roosevelt had successfully used public pressure to enact laws in the past, and expected this strategy to work with his new idea. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, his decision backfired. The electorate felt reverence for the Supreme Court, and polls showed nearly half opposed the plan. Newspapers began publishing editorials denouncing the idea, while many Americans wrote letters to their Congressmen urging them to vote No. This was opposite the President's intended effect.

Politically, Republicans flatly opposed FDR's scheme because it would shift the ideology of the Court from conservative to liberal, giving Roosevelt a means of upholding legislation the Republicans neither liked nor supported. Although the Democrats held an overwhelming majority in Congress, and a united Senate could have passed the bill easily, the party was split in its support. Even Roosevelt's Vice-President, John Garner, publicly opposed the reorganization as an abuse of Executive power.

Roosevelt relied heavily on his alliance with the popular and powerful Joseph T. Robinson to gather the votes needed for passage. Robinson held the Senate floor for two full days, but the effort exhausted him. At the end of the second day, he went home complaining of chest pains and died overnight of a heart attack.

In April, the Supreme Court's swing voter, Justice Owen Roberts, shifted his vote on New Deal programs from conservative to liberal, giving the Roosevelt administration an important win in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, (1937), upholding a state minimum wage law. This shift was referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine," meaning Owens' decision to vote with the liberal bloc saved the nine justices from Roosevelt's scheme (the phrase was a play on the old aphorism, "a stitch in time saves nine."). (Historians claim Owens' decision had already been made before the Judiciary Reorganization Bill was announced.) The Court also delivered two unanimous opinions on New Deal-friendly cases the same day. These decisions further decayed voter support for reorganization.

Without Robinson's support, and with direct opposition from the Vice-President, Republicans, members of his own Democratic party, and the voting public, President Roosevelt's plan had no chance for success. The Senate voted 70-20 to return the legislation to the Senate Judiciary Committee with explicit instructions to strip it of its court-packing provisions.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 3

President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to exceed the authority of his office by ignoring the separation of powers. Roosevelt hoped to advance his agenda by exercising powers assigned exclusively to Congress under Article I of the Constitution (determining the size and structure of the Supreme Court). Many Congressmen, including members of his own Democratic party, considered Roosevelt's court-packing plan to be an unconstitutional attempt to shift more authority to the President, which could cripple Congress.

Court-packing is an attempt by the sitting President to override checks and balances by nominating numerous members of his (or her) own party or ideology to the Supreme Court or other courts in the federal judiciary. This action generally skews decisions to accommodate the President's agenda for an extended period of time because Article III Courts (primarily US District Courts, US Courts of Appeals Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States) award judges and justices lifetime appointments.

If the Congress is controlled or heavily influenced by the opposing political party, attempts at court-packing can be thwarted. Congress uses the power of checks and balances to prevent the President from achieving his goal.