The nature and sources of the New Deal Constitutional Revolution are among the most discussed and debated subjects in constitutional historiography. Scholars have reached significantly divergent conclusions concerning how best to understand the meaning and the causes of constitutional decisions rendered by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Though recent years have witnessed certain refinements in scholarly understandings of various dimensions of the phenomenon, the relevant documentary record seemed to have been rather thoroughly explored. Recently, however, a remarkably instructive set of primary sources has become available. For many years, the docket books kept by a number of the Hughes Court justices have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. These docket books supply a wealth of information concerning the internal deliberations of the justices. Justice Pierce Butler’s docket book in particular provides a remarkably rich set of notes on the Court’s discussions of cases in conference. Yet the existence of these docket books was not widely known, and access to them was highly restricted. As a consequence scholars knew very little about the Court’s internal deliberations in the landmark cases of its 1936 October Term. This article, which is based upon a review of all of the surviving docket books from that Term, considers what those sources can teach us about the cases comprising what some have called the “switch-in-time”: West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, which upheld Washington State’s minimum wage law for women and overruled Adkins v Children’s Hospital; the Labor Board Cases, which upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act; and the Social Security Cases, which upheld the constitutionality of provisions of the Social Security Act establishing an old-age pension system and a federal-state cooperative plan of unemployment insurance, as well as corresponding state unemployment compensation statutes. Considered in concert with information previously known, the data revealed by these docket books shed considerable new light on the nature of the Court’s deliberations in each of these three sets of cases, on the reasons for its decisions, and on the contention that the justices wrought a “Constitutional Revolution” in the spring of 1937.

中文翻译：

---

1937年“宪政革命”

新政宪法革命的性质和来源是宪法史学中讨论和争论最多的主题之一。关于如何最好地理解最高法院首席大法官查尔斯·埃文斯·休斯 (Charles Evans Hughes) 所做出的宪法裁决的含义和原因，学者们得出了截然不同的结论。尽管近年来学术界对该现象的各个方面的理解有所改进，但相关文献记录似乎已经得到了相当彻底的探索。然而，最近，一组非常有指导意义的原始资料已经可用。多年来，许多休斯法院法官保存的案卷书一直由最高法院馆长办公室保管。这些案卷提供了大量有关法官内部审议的信息。皮尔斯·巴特勒大法官的案卷书特别提供了一套非常丰富的关于法院在会议上讨论案件的笔记。然而，这些记事本的存在并不广为人知，并且对它们的访问受到严格限制。因此，学者们对法院在 1936 年 10 月任期具有里程碑意义的案件中的内部审议知之甚少。这篇文章基于对该学期所有幸存的案卷书的审查，考虑了这些来源可以教给我们的关于包括一些所谓的“时间转换”的案例的内容：West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish ，该法案支持华盛顿州的女性最低工资法，并否决了 Adkins 诉儿童医院案；劳工委员会案件，支持《国家劳动关系法》的合宪性；社会保障案件，这些案件支持《社会保障法》关于建立养老金制度和联邦-州失业保险合作计划的条款以及相应的州失业补偿法规的合宪性。考虑到先前已知的信息，这些案卷书揭示的数据对法院在这三组案件中的每一组案件的审议性质、其决定的原因以及法官提出的论点提供了相当多的新启示。 1937 年春天的“宪政革命”。该法案支持《社会保障法》关于建立养老金制度和联邦-州失业保险合作计划以及相应的州失业补偿法规的规定的合宪性。考虑到先前已知的信息，这些案卷书揭示的数据对法院在这三组案件中的每一组案件的审议性质、其决定的原因以及法官提出的论点提供了相当多的新启示。 1937 年春天的“宪政革命”。该法案支持《社会保障法》关于建立养老金制度和联邦-州失业保险合作计划以及相应的州失业补偿法规的规定的合宪性。考虑到先前已知的信息，这些案卷书揭示的数据对法院在这三组案件中的每一组案件的审议性质、其决定的原因以及法官提出的论点提供了相当多的新启示。 1937 年春天的“宪政革命”。