The urgent need for rebuilding and readjusting our economic system has forced the various governments to devise methods by which to achieve those ends. The legislative enactments resulting from the efforts to bring about a "recovery" are destined to be challenged on the due process ground. The public is keenly concerned not alone in the practicality of the methods selected, but in their constitutionality as well. The recent case of Nebbia v. People is not only of interest to the lawyer; it was accepted as "good copy" in leading lay publications. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of one Nebbia, a retail grocer, for violation of an order of the Milk Control Board which had fixed a minimum price under Chapter 158 of the New York Laws of r933. The view is current that the decision in the Nebbia case represents a distinct break with the past, a kind of judicial revolution. This view seems to be based upon the assumption that legal principles develop in a smooth, continuous manner, marked by a careful consistency. Those familiar with the law know that the development is frequently spasmodic, broken, and characterized by a trial-and-error approach. The decision in the Nebbia case comes at a critical time, and it may be of value to examine into the reasoning and authority upon which the result was based.