Ferguson v. Skrupa DBA Credit Advisors - The Facts Of The Case, High Court Rules, Broad Scope For State Legislatures
William M. Ferguson
Skrupa DBA Credit Advisors
That Kansas legislation regulating the business of "debt adjusting" did not constitute a violation of constitutional due process.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William M. Ferguson
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
22 April 1963
Kansas legislation regulating debt adjusting was held not to be a violation of the Due Process Clause.
With its decision in Ferguson v. Skrupa DBA Credit Advisors the Supreme Court expressly disavowed its previous practice of assessing the wisdom of state legislation regulating economic activity.
The Supreme Court's decision in Ferguson v. Skrupa was about more than just the legality of debt adjusting in the state of Kansas. It put the Court on record as affording states wide latitude to regulate economic activity within their borders. This important shift in direction would affect many subsequent cases.
- Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968).
- Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351 (1974).
- Chandler, Ralph C. The Constitutional Law Dictionary. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1987.
- Cushman, Robert, with Susan P. Koniak. Leading Constitutional Decisions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992.
- Menez, Joseph Francis. Summaries of Leading Cases of the Constitution. Savage, MD: Littlefield, Adams, 1990.
- Freedman v. Maryland - Significance, Further Readings
- Evans v. Newton - Significance, A Bequest To The Public, A Public Or A Private Facility?, Impact, De Facto Segregation
- Ferguson v. Skrupa DBA Credit Advisors - The Facts Of The Case
- Ferguson v. Skrupa DBA Credit Advisors - High Court Rules
- Ferguson v. Skrupa DBA Credit Advisors - Broad Scope For State Legislatures
- Other Free Encyclopedias