Lockerty v. Phillips, No. 934

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTONE
Citation63 S.Ct. 1019,319 U.S. 182,87 L.Ed. 1339
Decision Date10 May 1943
Docket NumberNo. 934
PartiesLOCKERTY et al. v. PHILLIPS, United States Attorney for District of New Jersey

319 U.S. 182
63 S.Ct. 1019
87 L.Ed. 1339
LOCKERTY et al.

v.

PHILLIPS, United States Attorney for District of New Jersey.

No. 934.
Argued May 3, 1943.
Decided May 10, 1943.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.

Page 183

Mr. Arthur T. Vanderbilt, of Newark, N.J., for appellants.

Mr. Thomas I. Emerson, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from page 183 intentionally omitted]

Page 184

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for our decision is whether the jurisdiction of the district court below to enjoin the enforcement of price regulations prescribed by the Administrator under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, was validly withdrawn by § 204(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 924(d). Appellants brought this suit in the district court for the District of New Jersey for an injunction restraining appellee, the United States Attorney for that district, from the prosecution of pending and prospective criminal proceedings against appellants for violation of §§ 4(a) and 205(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix §§ 904(a), 925(b), and of Maximum Price Regulation No. 169. In view of the provisions of § 204(d) of the Act, the district court of three judges, 28 U.S.C. § 380a, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380a dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction to entertain it.

The amended bill of complaint alleges that appellants are established merchants owning valuable wholesale meat businesses, in the course of which they purchase meat from packers and sell it at wholesale to retail dealers; that Maximum Price Regulation No. 169, promulgated by the Price Administrator under the purported authority of § 2(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.A.C.Appendix § 902(a), as originally issued and as revised, fixed maximum wholesale prices for specified cuts of beef; that in fixing such prices the Administrator had failed to give due consideration to the various factors affecting the cost of production and distribution of meat in the industry as a whole; that the Administrator had failed to fix or regulate the price of livestock; that the conditions in the industry—including the quantity of meat available to packers for distribution to wholesalers, the packers' expectation of profit, and the effect of these conditions upon the prices of meat sold by packers to wholesalers—are such that appellants are and will be unable to obtain a supply of meat from packers which they can resell to retail dealers within the

Page 185

prices fixed by Regulation No. 169; that enforcement of the Regulation will preclude appellants' continuance in business as meat wholesalers; that the Act as thus applied to appellants is a denial of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and involves an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Administrator; that appellee threatens to prosecute appellants for each sale of meat at a price greater than that fixed by the Regulation, and to subject them to the fine and imprisonment prescribed by §§ 4 and 205(b) of the Act for violations of the Act or of price regulations prescribed by the Administrator under the Act; and that such enforcement by repeated prosecutions of appellants will irreparably injure them in their business and property.

Section 203(a), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923(a), sets up a procedure whereby any person subject to any provision of any regulation, order or price schedule promulgated under the Act may within sixty days 'file a protest specifically setting forth objections to any such provision and affidavits or other written evidence in support of such objections'. He may also protest later on grounds arising after the expiration of the original sixty days. The subsection directs that within a specified time 'the Administrator shall either grant or deny such protest in whole or in part, notice such protest for hearing, or provide an opportunity to present further evidence in connection therewith. In the event that the Administrator denies any such protest in whole or in part, he shall inform the protestant of the grounds upon which such decision is based, and of any economic data and other facts of which the Administrator has taken official notice.'

By § 204(a), 'Any person who is aggrieved by the denial or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
225 practice notes
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...S.Ct. 877, 888, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943). 2 Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (1970) p. 10. 3 Id. at 11. 4 Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. at 182, 63 S.Ct. at 5 Id. at 179, 63 S.Ct. at 888. 6 See Exhibit A attached hereto. --------...
  • Sense v. Shinseki, No. 08–16728.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 10, 2011
    ...43 Stat. 607, 608–09. There's no doubt that Congress has the power to divest us of jurisdiction over such cases. See Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943). In any event, Congress didn't foreclose judicial review. Veterans can bring their claims to the ......
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...of the lower federal courts. E. g., Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944); Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943); Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323, 58 S.Ct. 578, 82 L.Ed. 872 (1938); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 W......
  • Phillips v. U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, CIVIL NO. 3:15cv565
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • September 9, 2016
    ...from the congressional exercise of authority to "ordain and establish" inferior courts under the Constitution. Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187 (1943); Preston v. Purtell, 410 F.2d 234, 236 (7th Cir. 1969). A federal district court may hear a case only if it is authorized to do so by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
223 cases
  • United States v. Robel, No. 8
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1967
    ...would deny all opportunity for judicial determination of an asserted constitutional right is not to be favored.' Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 188, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 87 L.Ed. 1339. However, the text and history of this section compel the conclusion that Congress deliberately chose ......
  • Matter of Wildman, Bankruptcy No. 81 B 5869.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 6, 1983
    ...is a Congressional prerogative. Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Co., 339 U.S. 667, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950), Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 CONCLUSION The course of action for this Court to follow was expressed in Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 5......
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...S.Ct. 877, 888, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943). 2 Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (1970) p. 10. 3 Id. at 11. 4 Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. at 182, 63 S.Ct. at 5 Id. at 179, 63 S.Ct. at 888. 6 See Exhibit A attached hereto. --------...
  • League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, Case No. 3:17-cv-00101-SLG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska
    • March 29, 2019
    ...from them in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good." Lockerty v. Phillips , 319 U.S. 182, 187, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943) (citations and quotation marks omitted). No such ordination language exists in Section 12(a).40 Plaintiffs ......
  • 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