AP Syllabus focus:
‘Conservatives in Congress and the Supreme Court sought to restrict the scope of New Deal programs and reforms.’
Conservative resistance to the New Deal emerged from concerns about federal overreach, constitutional limits, and the perceived threat expansive programs posed to traditional economic, political, and social structures.
Conservative Resistance and Limits on the New Deal
Conservative opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal became a defining feature of 1930s political life, shaping both the scope and durability of federal reforms. While the New Deal dramatically expanded federal authority in response to the Great Depression, conservative lawmakers, business leaders, and Supreme Court justices challenged these measures as unconstitutional, economically misguided, and socially disruptive. Their resistance resulted in major judicial and legislative constraints that limited Roosevelt’s ambitions and influenced the long-term boundaries of American governance.
Ideological Foundations of Conservative Resistance
Many conservatives believed the New Deal violated core principles of limited government and free enterprise. They feared that sustained federal intervention undermined laissez-faire economics and individual economic autonomy. While conservatives did not form a single unified movement, their resistance stemmed from shared ideological commitments.
Laissez-faire economics: An economic philosophy asserting that markets function best with minimal government intervention.
Conservatives argued that the New Deal’s regulatory programs weakened the private sector and risked creating long-term dependency on the federal government. Their critiques resonated with groups anxious about rapid political change and the unprecedented growth of executive power.
Congressional Opposition and the Conservative Coalition
By the mid-1930s, conservative members of both parties—Republicans and southern Democrats—formed what became known as the Conservative Coalition, a voting bloc that systematically worked to curtail further New Deal expansion. Their influence grew as early enthusiasm for sweeping reform waned.
Key goals of the Conservative Coalition included:
Blocking legislation that strengthened labor unions or expanded worker protections
Opposing high federal spending and budget deficits
Preserving states’ rights against federal centralization
Resisting policies they believed threatened traditional racial and economic hierarchies—especially among southern Democrats
Although Roosevelt won a landslide reelection in 1936, the coalition gained momentum in the second half of his presidency and succeeded in limiting or defeating numerous proposed reforms after 1937.
Supreme Court Challenges and Constitutional Limits
The Supreme Court became the most formidable institutional check on the New Deal during its early years. A conservative majority, skeptical of broad federal regulatory power, struck down several key programs. This conflict escalated sharply in 1935 and 1936, when the Court invalidated major pillars of the First New Deal.
Among the most significant judicial actions were decisions that:
Ruled the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional for delegating legislative authority to the executive branch
Struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) for exceeding federal taxation and regulatory powers
Limited federal intervention in what the Court considered intrastate economic activity
These rulings signaled the Court’s commitment to maintaining traditional interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the separation of powers.
This photograph shows Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and the associate justices of the Supreme Court during the 1930s, often referred to as the Hughes Court. Several justices in this Court formed a conservative bloc that repeatedly invalidated New Deal laws on constitutional grounds. The image includes more biographical detail than required by the AP syllabus but helps students see the real figures behind the Court’s decisions limiting the New Deal. Source.
Roosevelt’s Court-Packing Plan and Its Impact
In response to repeated judicial defeats, Roosevelt introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, widely known as the court-packing plan. This proposal would have allowed the president to appoint additional justices for every sitting justice over the age of seventy who refused to retire.
Opposition to the plan united conservatives and many moderates, including members of Roosevelt’s own party.
In this photograph, Vice President John Nance Garner and Senators William H. Dieterich and Henry F. Ashurst examine the text of the 1937 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, better known as the court-packing bill. Their focused, skeptical posture underscores the bipartisan unease about altering the Supreme Court to protect New Deal legislation. The image includes additional individuals and setting details beyond the AP syllabus but clearly highlights congressional resistance that helped limit the scope of the New Deal. Source.
Although the bill failed, the controversy had lasting consequences:
It damaged Roosevelt’s political capital at a critical moment
It energized conservative resistance
It highlighted national anxieties about executive overreach
It arguably encouraged the Court’s subsequent shift toward upholding certain New Deal programs
The episode exemplified the limits placed on New Deal expansion by constitutional structure and political norms.
Economic Conservatives and Business Resistance
Business leaders were among the earliest and most vocal opponents of the New Deal. They argued that federal regulation of wages, hours, and production hindered economic recovery and imposed unacceptable constraints on private enterprise. Organizations such as the American Liberty League denounced New Deal programs as “socialistic” and warned that expanded federal authority threatened property rights and free markets.
Conservative economic arguments emphasized:
The dangers of deficit spending
The belief that recovery required revitalizing—not restraining—private investment
Concerns that labor protections, particularly those strengthening unions, would increase costs and reduce competitiveness
Their influence extended to the public sphere, where coordinated messaging shaped perceptions of federal intervention.
The Decline of New Deal Expansion After 1937
Roosevelt’s political setbacks, changing public sentiment, and conservative resurgence combined to halt the momentum of New Deal reform. After 1937, Congress effectively blocked proposals for new major social programs, including significant expansions of health or welfare provision. Even with Democratic majorities, the coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats ensured that the federal government would not move further toward a comprehensive welfare state.
Political, institutional, and ideological barriers thus defined the limits of the New Deal:
Political limits: Opposition from the Conservative Coalition and moderates
Judicial limits: Early Supreme Court rulings restricting federal power
Institutional limits: Resistance to perceived executive overreach
Ideological limits: Deep national divisions over the meaning of freedom, government, and economic responsibility
These constraints ensured that while the New Deal reshaped American governance, it remained a limited welfare state rather than a fully transformative restructuring of the nation’s economic order.
FAQ
Roosevelt relied heavily on Southern Democrats to pass major legislation, but many of them opposed expansive federal intervention—especially policies perceived to threaten racial hierarchies or state authority.
Their influence meant Roosevelt often scaled back proposals involving labour protections, civil rights, or large welfare expansions to avoid alienating this crucial voting bloc.
This dynamic contributed to the emergence of the Conservative Coalition, which became increasingly assertive after 1937.
For many business leaders, labour protections symbolised a shift in power from private enterprise to organised labour and the federal government.
They feared this shift could erode managerial control by legitimising union demands and federal oversight.
Concerns also extended to long-term cultural change, as business leaders believed New Deal interventions undermined traditional employer–employee relationships grounded in voluntary agreements.
Conservatives framed their objections as defence of the Constitution, not merely partisan disagreement.
They argued that unchecked executive authority risked threatening individual liberties and concentrating too much power in Washington.
By linking constitutional limits to everyday freedoms, conservatives broadened their appeal beyond traditional political supporters.
The backlash weakened Roosevelt's political authority, making him more cautious in proposing ambitious structural reforms.
He shifted focus toward administrative adjustments and implementing existing programmes rather than pursuing sweeping expansion.
The episode also encouraged Roosevelt to secure legislative support more carefully, recognising that even Democratic majorities could fracture under perceived executive overreach.
The economic downturn known as the Roosevelt Recession undermined confidence in further federal intervention and strengthened conservative arguments about government overreach.
Many voters grew sceptical of continued experimentation, prompting members of Congress to distance themselves from expanding New Deal authority.
As a result, conservatives gained momentum to block reforms, claiming that recovery required stabilising rather than enlarging federal programmes.
Practice Questions
(1–3 marks)
Identify one reason why some members of the US Congress opposed President Roosevelt’s 1937 court-packing plan.
Explain how this reason reflected broader conservative concerns during the New Deal period.
Question 1 (1–3 marks)
1 mark: Identifies a valid reason for congressional opposition (e.g., fear of executive overreach; concern for judicial independence; belief that the plan violated constitutional norms; suspicion of Roosevelt’s growing power).
1 mark: Provides brief explanation of how the reason reflects wider conservative concerns (e.g., defence of limited government; protection of checks and balances; distrust of rapid federal expansion).
1 mark: Demonstrates clear linkage to the broader political context of the New Deal (e.g., conservatives’ commitment to restraining federal intervention or preserving traditional interpretations of the Constitution).
Total: 3 marks.
(4–6 marks)
Using your knowledge of the period 1933–1939, evaluate the extent to which conservative resistance successfully limited the expansion of New Deal reforms.
In your answer, refer to both congressional and judicial opposition.
Question 2 (4–6 marks)
Award marks as follows:
1–2 marks: Provides basic description of conservative resistance with limited detail (e.g., notes that both Congress and the Supreme Court opposed some New Deal measures).
3–4 marks: Offers specific, accurate examples (e.g., Supreme Court rulings striking down NIRA or AAA; the Conservative Coalition blocking later reforms; failure of the 1937 court-packing plan) and explains how these limited expansion.
5–6 marks: Presents a balanced evaluation addressing the extent of conservative success, considering both limitations and the continued implementation of certain New Deal reforms (e.g., Social Security, Wagner Act), and situates the analysis within the wider historical context of shifting political support after 1937.
Total: 6 marks.
