Bowles v. Seminole Rock Sand Co

Decision Date04 June 1945
Docket NumberNo. 914,914
PartiesBOWLES, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, v. SEMINOLE ROCK & SAND CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Henry M. Hart, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Robert H. Anderson, of Miami, Fla., for respondent.

Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Our consideration here is directed to the proper interpretation and application of certain provisions of Maximum Price Regulation No. 188,1 issued by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration under Section 2(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942.2

Respondent is a manufacturer of crushed stone, a commodity subject to Maximum Price Regulation No. 188. In October, 1941, respondent contracted to furnish the Seaboard Air Line Railway crushed stone on demand at 60 cents per ton, to be delivered when called for by Seaboard. This stone was actually delivered to Seaboard in March, 1942.

In January, 1942, respondent had contracted to sell crushed stone to V. P. Loftis Co., a government contractor engaged in the construction of a government dam, for $1.50 a ton.3 This stone was to be delivered by respondent by barge when needed at the dam site. A small portion of stone of a different grade than that sold to seaboard was delivered to Loftis Co. during January pursuant to this contract. For some time thereafter, however, Lotfis Co. was unable to pour concrete or to store crushed stone at the dam site. Respondent thus made no further deliveries under this contract until August, 1942, at which time stone of the same grade as received by Seaboard was delivered to Loftis Co. at the $1.50 rate.

Subsequently, and after the effective date of Maximum Price Regulation No. 188, respondent made new contracts to sell crushed stone to Seaboard at 85 cents and $1.00 per ton. Alleging that the highest price at which res ondent could lawfully sell crushed stone of the kind sold to Seaboard was 60 cents a ton, since that was asserted to be the highest price charged by respondent during the crucial month of March, 1942, the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration brought this action to enjoin respondent from violating the Act and Maximum Price Regulation No. 188.4 The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that $1.50 a ton was the highest price charged by respondent during March, 1942, and that this ceiling price had not been exceeded. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 145 F.2d 482. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the problem in the administration of the emergency price control and stabilization laws. 324 U.S. 835, 65 S.Ct. 861.

In his efforts to combat war time inflation, the Administrator originally adopted a policy of piecemeal price control, only certain specified articles being subject to price regulation. On April 28, 1942, however, he issued the General Maximum Price Regulation.5 This brought the entire economy of the nation under price control with certain minor exceptions. The core of the regulation was the requirement that each seller shall charge no more than the prices which he charged during the selected base period of March 1 to 31, 1942. While still applying this general price 'freeze' as of March, 1942, numerous specialized regulations relating to particular groups of commodities subsequently have made certain refinements and modifications of the general regulation. Maximum Price Regulation No. 188, covering specified building materials and consumers' goods, is of this number.

The problem in this case is to determine the highest price respondent charged for crushed stone during March, 1942, within the meaning of Maximum Price Regulation No. 188. Since this involves an interpretation of an adminis- trative regulation a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. The intention of Congress or the principles of the Constitution in some situations may be relevant in the first instance in choosing between various constructions. But the ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. The legality of the result reached by this process, of course, is quite a different matter. In this case the only problem is to discover the meaning of certain portions of Maximum Price Regulation No. 188. Our only tools, therefore, are the plain words of the regulation and any relevant interpretations of the Administrator.

Section 1499.153(a) of Maximum Price Regulation No. 188 provides that 'the maximum price for any article which was delivered or offered for delivery in March, 1942, by the manufacturer, shall be the highest price charged by the manufacturer during March, 1942 (as defined in § 1499.163) for the article.' Section 1499.163(a)(2)6 in turn provides that for purposes of this regulation the term:

"Highest price charged during March, 1942' means

'(i) T e highest price which the seller charged to a purchaser of the same class for delivery of the article or material during March, 1942; or

'(ii) If the seller made no such delivery during March, 1942, such seller's highest offering price to a purchaser of the same class for delivery of the article or material during that month; or

'(iii) If the seller made no such delivery and had no such offering price to a purchaser of the same class during March, 1942, the highest price charged by the seller during March, 1942, to a purchaser of a different class, ad- justed to reflect the seller's customary differential between the two classes of purchasers; * * *'

It is thus evident that the regulation establishes three mutually exclusive rules for determining the highest price charged by a seller during March, 1942. The facts of each case must first be tested by rule (i); only if that rule is inapplicable may rule (ii) be utilized; and only if both rules (i) and (ii) are inapplicable is rule (iii) controlling.

The dispute in this instance centers about the meaning and applicability of rule (i). The Administrator claims that the rule is satisfied and therefore is controlling whenever there has been an actual delivery of articles in the month of March, 1942, such as occurred when respondent delivered the crushed rock to Seaboard at the 60-cent rate. The respondent, on the other hand, argues that there must be both a charge and a delivery during March, 1942, in order to fix the ceiling price according to rule (i). Since the charge or sale to Seaboard occurred several months prior to March, it is asserted that rule (i) becomes inapplicable and that rule (ii) must be used. Inasmuch as there was an outstanding offering price of $1.50 per ton for delivery of crushed stone to Loftis Co. during the month of March, 1942, although the stone was not actually delivered at that time, respondent concludes that the requirements of rule (ii) have been met and that the ceiling price is $1.50 per ton.

As we read the regulation, however, rule [i] clearly applies to the facts of this case, making 60 cents per ton the ceiling price for respondent's crushed stone. The regulation recognizes the fact that more than one meaning may be attached to the phrase 'highest price charged during Mach, 1942.' The phrase might be construed to mean only the actual charges or sales made during March, regardless of the delivery dates. Or it might refer only to the charges made for actual delivery in March. Whatever may be the variety of meanings, however, rule (i) adopts the highest price which the seller 'charged * * * for delivery' of an article during March, 1942. The essential element bringing the rule into operation is thus the fact of delivery during March. If delivery occurs during that period the highest price charged for such delivery becomes the ceiling price. Nothing is said concerning the time when the charge or sale7 giving rise to the delivery occurs. One may make a sale or charge in October relative to an article which is actually delivered in March and still be said to have 'charged * * * for delivery * * * during March.' We can only conclude, therefore, that for purposes of rule (i) the highest price charged for an article delivered during March, 1942, is the seller's ceiling price regardless of the time when the sale or charge was made.

This conclusion is further borne out by the fact that rule [ii] becomes applicable onl where 'the seller made no such delivery during March, 1942,' as contemplated by rule (i). The absence of a delivery, rather than the absence of both a charge and a delivery during March, is necessary to make rule (i) ineffective, thereby indicating that the factor of delivery is the essence of rule (i). It is apparent, moreover, that the delivery must be an actual instead of a constructive one. Section 1499.20(d) of General Maximum Price Regulation, incorporated by reference into Maximum Price Regulation No. 188 by Section 1499.151, defines the word 'delivered' as meaning 'received by the purchaser or by any carrier * * * for shipment to the purchaser' during March, 1942. Thus an article is not 'delivered' to a purchaser during March because of the existence of an executory contract under which no shipments are actually made to him during that month. In short, the Administrator in rule (i) was concerned with what actually was delivered, not with what might have been delivered....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1389 cases
  • Doe v. General Services Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 27 Julio 1982
    ...a direct conflict with the statutory language or the underlying congressional purposes. See Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-15, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217-1218, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945). That principle is somewhat diluted in this context, however, as the GSA is neither specifically nor ......
  • West Virginia Coal Ass'n v. Reilly
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 28 Diciembre 1989
    ...erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'" Id. at 16-17, 85 S.Ct. at 801-802 (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)). While the court concedes that the suspension of the last sentence creates some confusion as to the p......
  • Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 24 Noviembre 2009
    ...of its holdings, the Fourth Circuit relied heavily on a theory of agency deference. Specifically, the Circuit Court relied on Auer or Seminole Rock deference, a "highly deferential" kind of review that is appropriate when a court reviews an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, se......
  • Kaiser Found. Hospitals v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 12 Diciembre 2011
    ...position was “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Id. at 417 (citing Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)). Like the Plaintiffs in this case, the Secretary argued that an intermediary determination is only reopened ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Decision Alert - March 9, 2015
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 9 Marzo 2015
    ...only in a footnote, mentioning that deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), is "not an inexorable command" and that "it is the court that ultimately decides whether a given regulation means what the agency Three ......
  • Supreme Court Rules That Agency Interpretive Rules Are Not Subject To Notice-And-Comment Rulemaking
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 19 Marzo 2015
    ...addressing the need to revisit the amount of deference afforded to government agencies under Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). For employers, the DOL's Interpretation now stan......
  • U.S. Supreme Court Holds Agency Interpretations Are Not Subject To Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Requirement
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 25 Marzo 2015
    ...as law because they may be entitled to deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997) and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945) the Court made clear that a revised interpretation is entitled to no deference if it appears to be the result of a simple shift of th......
  • What Amount of Deference, If Any, Is Accorded To CMS' Interpretation Of The State Operations Manual?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 21 Agosto 2013
    ...According to the Court, the second level of interpretation is entitled to Seminole Rock deference, Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 The third level of interpretation, and the level at issue in this case, is CMS' interpretation "of the SOM Appendix's requirement." CMS' po......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 books & journal articles
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2010
    • 22 Junio 2010
    ...Forest Serv., 565 F.3d 545, 554 (9th Cir. 2009). (394) Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997); Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945); Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1099 (9th Cir. 2003). The "plainly erroneous or inconsistent" standard is......
  • REASONABLE TAX RULES: ADVANCING PROCESS VALUES WITH REMEDIAL RESTRAINT.
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 24 No. 1, September 2020
    • 22 Septiembre 2020
    ...so long as its choice is not 'plainly erroneous'" (quoting, with emphasis added by Manning, Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (312.) See Cummings, supra note 310, at 705 (criticizing abuse of entity regulation or creating "a vast discretionary authority in the commis......
  • Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-4, April 2015
    • 1 Abril 2015
    ...its own regulation is not entitled to deference” under either Chevron / Mead or Seminole Rock / Auer (Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)/Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997), discussed in Part IV, below). See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d......
  • United States v. DTE Energy Co.: A Flawed Decision With Implications for the Future Enforceability of New Source Review
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-6, June 2015
    • 1 Junio 2015
    ...deference is commonly known as Auer or Seminole Rock deference. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997); Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945). In his concurrence in Talk America , Justice Antonin Scalia noted that he had become “increasingly doubtful” of the validity of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT