Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States

E24296

Commerce Clause case U.S. Supreme Court case constitutional law case landmark case separation of powers case

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (5)

Label	Occurrences
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States canonical	10
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States	5
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation	1
Schechter Poultry case	1
Sick Chicken case	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T193458 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Context triple: [National Recovery Administration, dissolvedByDecision, Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States]

A. Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
B. United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
C. United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
D. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
E. Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Target entity description: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.

A. Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
B. United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
C. United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
D. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
E. Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Commerce Clause case ⓘ U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ separation of powers case ⓘ
alsoKnownAs	Schechter Poultry case ⓘ linked to: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States Sick Chicken case ⓘ linked to: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
chiefJustice	Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ
citation	295 U.S. 495 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ linked to: Commerce Clause nondelegation principle derived from separation of powers ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1935-05-27 ⓘ
decisionType	unanimous decision ⓘ
defendant	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
docketNumber	854 ⓘ
fullName	A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ⓘ linked to: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
historicalContext	early New Deal era ⓘ
holding	Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President ⓘ Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act is unconstitutional ⓘ linked to: National Industrial Recovery Act the challenged activities were not in interstate commerce and had only an indirect effect on interstate commerce ⓘ the federal government could not regulate the intrastate poultry business at issue under the Commerce Clause ⓘ
impact	became a leading precedent on the nondelegation doctrine ⓘ contributed to the Supreme Court’s resistance to early New Deal legislation ⓘ invalidated a central component of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program ⓘ limited federal power to regulate intrastate activities under the Commerce Clause at that time ⓘ
issue	constitutionality of the National Industrial Recovery Act ⓘ scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President ⓘ
laterDevelopments	subsequent cases expanded the Commerce Clause beyond the narrow view in this case ⓘ
lawStruckDown	National Industrial Recovery Act ⓘ
lawStruckDownPart	Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act ⓘ linked to: National Industrial Recovery Act
legalSubject	Commerce Clause ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ federalism ⓘ nondelegation doctrine ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ
locationOfFacts	poultry business in Brooklyn, New York ⓘ
nicknameOrigin	called the Sick Chicken case because it involved allegedly unfit chickens sold in violation of code requirements ⓘ
opinionBy	Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ
plaintiff	A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation ⓘ linked to: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
relatedTo	National Industrial Recovery Administration ⓘ linked to: National Recovery Administration New Deal ⓘ codes of fair competition ⓘ
subjectMatter	regulation of wages, hours, and trade practices in the poultry industry ⓘ
vote	9-0 ⓘ
yearDecided	1935 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (18)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

National Recovery Administration → dissolvedByDecision → Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ⓘ

National Industrial Recovery Act → keyCourtCase → Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ⓘ

National Recovery Administration → declaredUnconstitutionalInCase → Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ⓘ

subject linked to: NRA

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States → fullName → A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ⓘ