In my POLS4700: Constitutional Law class this semester, I was tasked with briefing and presenting an assigned case. I was assigned Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934); I assumed it was a cut and dry case and never expected it to be so relevant to today’s world. Home Building & Loan Association was truly about how law and policy can intersect to deal with a crisis impacting real people’s lives; which still is a debate during modern states of emergency.
The case comes out of the extreme economic crisis that was the Great Depression; Minnesota passed a Mortgage Moratorium Law in 1933 to extend foreclosure periods to
help homeowners have time to pay off their loans. When Home Building & Loan Association came to collect from John and Rosella Blaisdell, they were blocked by the
state. Home Building & Loan Association then filed a petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court saying that this was a violation of the Contract Clause of the Constitution; that outlines how States cannot interfere with private agreements. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law, saying that it was a fair use of police powers during an economic crisis. When Home Building & Loan Association appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court decided, in a close 5-4 vote, to upheld Minnesota Supreme Court decision. The Court says that the law was a temporary and reasonable use of state power to protect people during an emergency.
While presenting and briefing the case, I was supposed to form my own opinion as if I was a Supreme Court justice. I found myself torn between both sides. Chief Justice Hughes (majority) explains how people were losing their homes and when you read the Contract Clause with state police powers, the government can step in. It was a move both for private interests, borrowers got a two-year period of reasonable rent before foreclosure and lenders still had their contracts and rights, as well as public needs because the economy could not handle more foreclosures. But Justice Sutherland mentions an especially crucial point. He worries that once we begin to bend the limits the Constitution provides, it is hard to stop. Sutherland stresses fidelity to the Constitution, both when it pinches and when it
comforts.
These two sides are what really intrigued me about this case and brought it back to modern issues. What side must the government take when they are tasked with both being compassionate and working within constitutional constraint? Can they begin to bend the Constitution to help struggling people? Where is the promise that after the emergency has ended, the Constitution will not continue to bend? The law is not just about rules; it is about timing, context, and judgment. This is what I truly love about SPIA courses: I am pushed once again to think about how governmental decisions impact everyday lives. We get to study how at its core our government is in a constant balancing act between protecting rights and responding to reality.
Author
Anabella van Kempen
B.A. Philosophy; B.A. Political Science; B.A. Sociology | Pre-Law Track
University of Georgia | Class of 2027
