Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell

__NOTOC__Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell
ArgueDateA=November 8
ArgueDateB=9
ArgueYear=1933
DecideDate=January 8
DecideYear=1934
FullName=Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, et ux.
USVol=290
USPage=398
Citation=54 S.Ct. 231; 88 A.L.R. 1481
Prior=Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota.
Subsequent=
Holding=Minnesota's suspension of creditor's remedies was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act upheld.
SCOTUS=1932-1937
Majority=Hughes
JoinMajority=Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo
Dissent=Sutherland
JoinDissent=Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler
LawsApplied=

"Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell", 290 U.S. 398 (1934), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Minnesota's suspension of creditor's remedies was not in violation of the United States Constitution. "Blaisdell" was decided during the height of the Great Depression and has been widely criticized since as an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of contract.cite journal |last=Epstein |first= Richard A. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1984 |month= |title=Toward a Revitalization of the Contract Clause |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=703–751 |doi=10.2307/1599484 |url= |accessdate= |quote= ] [cite journal |last=Burch |first=Alan R. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1999 |month= |title=Purchasing the Right to Govern: Winstar and the Need to Reconceptualize the Law of Regulatory Agreements |journal=Kentucky Law Journal |volume=88 |issue= |pages=245, 279 |issn=0023026X |url= |accessdate= |quote= ] [cite journal |last=Arkes |first=Hadley |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1999 |month= |title=On the Novelties of an Old Constitution: Settled Principles and Unsettling Surprises |journal=American Journal of Jurisprudence |volume=44 |issue= |pages=15, 17 |issn=00658995 |url= |accessdate= |quote= ] Nevertheless, "Blaisdell" has never been explicitly overruled.

In 1933, in response to a large number of home foreclosures, Minnesotta, like many other states at the time, [cite journal |last=Wright |first=Fred |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2005 |month= |title=The Effect of New Deal Real Estate Residential Finance and Foreclosure Policies Made in Response to the Real Estate Conditions of the Great Depression |journal=Alabama Law Review |volume=57 |issue= |pages=231, 240–241 |issn=00024279 |url= |accessdate= |quote= ] extended the time available for mortgagor's to redeem their mortgages from foreclosure. The extension had the effect of "cutting down of the [mortgagee's] estate and enlarg [ing] […] the mortgagors' estate […] contrary to the express terms of the contract.""Blaisdell", 290 U.S. at 398.]

The Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that the emergency conditions created by the Great Depression "may justify the exercise of [the State's] continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts." "Blaisdell" was the first time the court extended the emergency exception to purely economic emergencies.

While the "Blaisdell" itself might have been held to apply only in limited instances of economic emergency, by the late 1930s the emergency exception doctrine had expanded dramatically. [cite journal |last=Butler |first=Henry N. |authorlink= |coauthors=Ribstein, Larry E. |year=1999 |month= |title=Regulating Corporate Takeovers: State Anti-takeover Statutes and the Contract Clause |journal=University of Cincinnati Law Review |volume=57 |issue= |pages=611, 627 |issn=00096881 |url= |accessdate= |quote= ]

Criticism

"Blaisdell" has been criticized by many as an unfaithful reading of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. Notably, adherents to the Chicago School of law and economics have noted "Blaisdell" among the Court precedents that have diminished constitutional protection of individual property rights. Richard Epstein's criticisms have been some of the most vocal:

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 290
*Gold Clause Cases (1935)

References

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Bieneman |first=Charles A. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1992 |month= |title=Legal Interpretation and a Constitutional Case: "Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell" |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=90 |issue=8 |pages=2534–2564 |doi=10.2307/1289578 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite book |chapter=Rescinding Private Contracts |title=The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom |last=Levy |first=Robert A. |authorlink=Robert A. Levy |coauthors=Mellor, William H. |year=2008 |publisher=Sentinel |location=New York |isbn=9781595230508 |pages=50–66

External links

* [http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./290/398/ Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)] (opinion full text).