Four Horsemen vs. Three Musketeers
"Four Horsemen vs. Three Musketeers" refers to a notable ideological divide within the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1930s, particularly in relation to New Deal legislation proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The "Four Horsemen"—Justices Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and George Sutherland—often formed a majority against federal economic regulations, striking down several key New Deal initiatives such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. In contrast, the "Three Musketeers"—Justices Louis D. Brandeis, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Benjamin N. Cardozo—stood in dissent, advocating for broader governmental powers to address economic challenges.
This conflict highlighted a significant rift in judicial philosophy regarding the scope of federal authority over commerce and economic policy. The dynamic was further complicated by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts, who sometimes aligned with the Horsemen or the Musketeers, thereby influencing the outcomes of critical cases. Roosevelt's frustration with the Court's decisions led to his controversial "court-packing plan," which aimed to add more justices sympathetic to his agenda, although this plan ultimately became irrelevant as the Court began to shift in favor of New Deal laws. The legacy of the Four Horsemen and Three Musketeers continues to influence discussions around judicial activism and constitutional interpretation in American law.
Four Horsemen vs. Three Musketeers
The Event Infighting of U.S. Supreme Court members
Dates 1933-1937
Place Washington, D.C.
Between 1933 and 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional much federal and state economic legislation. Four members of the Supreme Court—later dubbed the “Four Horsemen”—consistently opposed economic legislation. Three other justices—nicknamed the “Three Musketeers”—regularly supported such legislation.
In 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president of the United States. Roosevelt promised the American people a “New Deal,” a complex package of economic reforms intended to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. Many of these reforms were later declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority of justices held a restrictive view of federal regulatory power. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. the United States (1935), a unanimous Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which authorized the president to set standards for wages, hours, and working conditions. The Court found that the activity in which the corporation was engaged was intrastate commerce and, therefore, outside the scope of Congress’s regulatory power over interstate commerce.
By 1936, the consensus among the justices on the issue of federal economic intervention had shattered. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, designed to raise farm prices by limiting production, was declared unconstitutional, by a six-to-three margin, in United States v. Butler (1936). In Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936), the Court, by a five-to-four margin, struck down the Bituminous CoalConservation Act of 1935, which set minimum prices for coal and provided for collective bargaining to achieve fair wages. Both acts were invalidated in part because they authorized Congress to regulate activity that did not qualify as interstate commerce. In both of the aforementioned cases, Justices Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and George Sutherland—the “Four Horsemen”—were in the majority. Also in both cases, Justices Louis D. Brandeis, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Benjamin N. Cardozo—the “Three Musketeers”—dissented. In United States v. Butler, the “Four Horsemen” were joined by Chief JusticeCharles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts; the latter provided the fifth vote in the Carter case.
Prior to this time, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler, and Sutherland had not been identified as a voting bloc, often taking separate positions on constitutional issues. However, during the 1935 term, the four often traveled together to and from the Court, presumably strategizing. In response, Brandeis, Stone, and Cardozo met weekly at Brandeis’s residence. These strategy sessions promoted the image of each group as a voting bloc. More times than not, Roberts agreed with the “Four Horsemen,” thus providing the fifth and decisive vote, with Hughes joining the “Three Musketeers.” As a result, many New Deal statutes were struck down.
Much state economic legislation was similarly invalidated. Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo (1936), for example, declared a New York minimum-wage law for women and children violative of the liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The split among the justices was a familiar one—the “Four Horsemen” and Roberts in the majority, the “Three Musketeers” and Hughes in dissent.
Impact
In February, 1937, following his landslide electoral victory, Roosevelt sent to Congress a bill to increase the number of justices. His stated reason for the “court-packing plan” was that the older justices were unable to attend to the workload. What he really wanted was a Court majority that would uphold economic legislation. The plan was soon rendered moot. The following month, in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), the Court voted five to four to uphold Washington State’s minimum-wage law. Two weeks later, by the same vote, the justices upheld the National Labor Relations Act in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937). The “Three Musketeers” and Hughes found a fifth vote in the person of Roberts. Journalists christened Roberts’s change “the switch in time that saved nine (justices).”
Between 1937 and 1941, Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, and McReynolds retired. Each was replaced by a Roosevelt nominee. The former justices did not become widely known as the “Four Horsemen (of Reaction)” until the 1950’s. This characterization was meant to categorize them as obstructionists, and it has largely persisted. In most rankings of Supreme Court justices, Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler are considered “failures.” By contrast, Brandeis, Stone, and Cardozo are ranked as “great.”
Bibliography
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Solomon, Burt. FDR v. Constitution: The Court-Packing Fight and the Triumph of Democracy. New York: Walker, 2009.
White, G. Edward. The Constitution and the New Deal. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.