Contrast the Supreme Court's pre-1937 response to cases relating to New Deal legislation with the Court's post-1937 response. Why did the Court's response change?

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court had a more conservative response to cases relating to New Deal legislation. The Court struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation, arguing that they exceeded the federal government's authority and violated the separation of powers. This was evident in cases such as Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and United States v. Butler.

However, after 1937, the Court's response to New Deal legislation shifted to a more liberal and deferential approach. This change in response can be attributed to several factors. One of the main reasons for the shift was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal to expand the Court by adding more justices, which was seen as a threat to the Court's independence. This proposal, known as the "court-packing plan," put pressure on the Court to align with the New Deal policies to avoid being expanded.

Additionally, some of the justices who had previously opposed the New Deal legislation retired, allowing Roosevelt to appoint more sympathetic justices to the Court. This led to a shift in the Court's composition and ultimately its response to New Deal legislation.

Overall, the Court's response changed due to external pressure from the executive branch and a shift in the Court's composition, leading to a more favorable stance towards New Deal legislation.