The A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States case in 1934 was a landmark decision by the U.S Supreme Court that declared the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional, marking a significant setback for President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies during the Great Depression era. The Schechter brothers, who owned a poultry business in Brooklyn, were convicted of violating NIRA codes regulating wages and working conditions as well as selling sick chickens which violated health regulations under NIRA's "Live Poultry Code." However, they challenged these convictions arguing that Congress had overstepped its constitutional powers by delegating legislative power to the president to draft industrial codes of fair competition and interfering with intrastate commerce - matters within states' jurisdiction according to them. The court unanimously ruled in favor of Schechters stating that while Congress could regulate interstate commerce, it couldn't regulate activities such as those carried out by Schechters which were local character i.e., intrastate commerce; thus striking down federal regulation on labor conditions at their company and voiding their conviction for sale of unfit chicken too since this law also fell under same invalid NIRA authority.

In the dissenting opinion for A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp v United States, Justice Cardozo argued that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was constitutional and should be upheld by the court. He contended that Congress had broad powers to regulate interstate commerce under Article I of the Constitution, which included indirect effects on interstate commerce such as those caused by unfair business practices in a local poultry market like Schechter's. According to him, it was not necessary for every detail of regulatory schemes to be spelled out explicitly in legislation; instead, he believed that Congress could delegate rule-making authority to executive agencies within certain limits defined by public policy objectives set forth in law itself - an approach known as "intelligent experimentation". Furthermore, he warned against judicial overreach into legislative domain and cautioned his colleagues about potential dangers posed by their overly rigid interpretation of non-delegation doctrine.