Final answer:
The Supreme Court initially opposed the New Deal's legislation for overreaching federal power, but following Roosevelt's court-packing plan, it began to uphold New Deal programs, changing the government's role in American lives.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court initially responded to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation with resistance, striking down major components such as the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) on grounds of excessive federal intervention in what was deemed the purview of state authority. This reflected a strict interpretation of the Constitution, suggesting the federal government was overstepping its bounds laid out by the document.
Pertinent Supreme Court cases like A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) demonstrated the Court's stance that the NIRA was unconstitutional because it allocated legislative powers to the president. Following Roosevelt's controversial court-packing proposal, however, the Court's rulings shifted, such as in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, which upheld the National Labor Relations Act, emphasizing the changing dynamics between the judiciary and the legislative branch concerning the New Deal.
Despite initial setbacks, the New Deal eventually led to a transformation in the relationship between the American public and the national government, introducing social safety nets and regulations that persist today.