During this time the Court moved back toward its broad interpretation of the commerce clause, but not as sharply as in the first era discussed. This led to some rather odd rulings by the Court. The era began with rulings that did not signify change. For example, in the case of Hammer v. Dagenherat, the Court ruled the commerce clause could not be used to regulate child labor laws. In the case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, The Court ruled that the commerce clause did not allow for federal statute to regulate a company that bought and sold chicken only in the State of New York. Finally, in the case of Carter v. Carter Coal Company, the Court ruled that mining was a local activity that could not be regulated under the commerce clause. It was not until the Court packing plan that rulings began to
During this time the Court moved back toward its broad interpretation of the commerce clause, but not as sharply as in the first era discussed. This led to some rather odd rulings by the Court. The era began with rulings that did not signify change. For example, in the case of Hammer v. Dagenherat, the Court ruled the commerce clause could not be used to regulate child labor laws. In the case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, The Court ruled that the commerce clause did not allow for federal statute to regulate a company that bought and sold chicken only in the State of New York. Finally, in the case of Carter v. Carter Coal Company, the Court ruled that mining was a local activity that could not be regulated under the commerce clause. It was not until the Court packing plan that rulings began to