Home Building & Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell (1900)
- Docket
- 370
- Decided
- 1900-1940-
Summary
Question: Did the Minnesota law violate the Contracts Clause? Conclusion: In an opinion authored by Justice Charles Hughes, the Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. The court reasoned that there are limitations on the doctrine embedded in the Contracts Clause (Section 10 of Article I). There may be a public need to restrain private rights to further the public interest when there is an emergency. The Framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen all possible modern problems, so the Constitution should not be interpreted in too rigid a way to allow for responding to them. This statute met the relevant five-factor test because there was a genuine emergency, the legislation was designed to help the public in general, the relief was narrowly tailored to the problem, the mortgagor's interests were not seriously undermined, and the legislation is temporary. Since the demands of the Great Depression were vital to all of the state's citizens, the Court held the law was a legitimate use of Minnesota's police power. Justice Sutherland dissented, joined by Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler.