Lockerty v. Phillips

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

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

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] 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regulations prescribed by the Administrator under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, was validly withdrawn by § 204(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 924(d).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 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 partial denial of his protest may, within thirty days after such denial, file a complaint with the Emergency Court of Appeals, created pursuant to subsection (c), spec- ifying his objections and praying that the regulation, order, or price schedule protested be enjoined or set aside in whole or in part.' Subsection (b) provides that no regulation, order, or price schedule, shall be enjoined 'unless the complainant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the regulation, order, or price schedule is not in accordance with law, or is arbitrary or capricious'. Under subsections (b) and (d), decisions of the Emergency Court may, by writ of certiorari, be brought for review to the Supreme Court, which is required to advance the cause on its docket and to expedite the disposition of it.

Although by following the procedure prescribed by these provisions of the Act appellants could have raised and obtained review of the questions presented by their bill of complaint, they did not protest the price regulation which they challenge and they took no proceedings for review of it by the Emergency Court. Appellants are thus seeking the aid of the district court to restrain the enforcement of an administrative order without pursuing the administrative remedy provided by the statute (cf. Illinois Commerce Commission v. Thomson, 318 U.S. 675, 63 S.Ct 834, 839, 87 L.Ed. —-, decided April 12, 1943), and without recourse to the judicial review by the Emergency Court of Appeals and by this Court which the statute affords.

Moreover the statute vests jurisdiction to grant equitable relief exclusively in the Emergency Court and in this Court. Section 204(d) declares: 'The Emergency Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court upon review of judgments and orders of the Emergency Court of Appeals, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any regulation or order issued under section 2, of any price schedule effective in accordance with the provisions of section 206, and of any provision of any such regulation, order, or price schedule. Except as provided in this section, no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to consider the validity of any such regula- tion, order, or price schedule, or to stay, restrain, enjoin, or set aside, in whole or in part, any provision of this Act authorizing the issuance of such regulations or orders, or making effective any such price schedule, or any provision of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to restrain or enjoin the enforcement of any such provision.'

By this statute Congress has seen fit to confer on the Emergency Court (and on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
227 cases
  • 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
    ...solely 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 d......
  • Smith v. Sperling
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 16, 1953
    ...Since this court possesses only such jurisdiction as has been conferred by statute, U.S.Const. Art. III; Lockerty v. Phillips, 1943, 319 U.S. 182, 187, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 and "lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived or be overcome by an agreement of the parties". Mitchell v.......
  • In re Conley, Bankruptcy No. 382-00990.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • January 26, 1983
    ...Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2403, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 1022, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Graves v.......
  • Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Hodel, Civ. A. No. 85-1894.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 30, 1986 an Article III court altogether, as long as some tribunal existed to hear its federal claims. See Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187-88, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 1022-23, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943). But see Guam v. Olsen, supra, 431 U.S. at 204, 97 S.Ct. at 1780. 37 The Court notes that if it were ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Equity's Constitutional Source.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 5, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...v. United States ex rel. Chi., St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 266 U.S. 42, 65-66 (1924). (28.) See Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187 (1943) (noting that Congress can withhold equity jurisdiction "in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper" (quotin......
  • Jurisdictional procedure.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 54 No. 1, October 2012
    • October 1, 2012
    ...of lower federal courts, but has appeared less willing to countenance alteration of its own jurisdiction. See, e.g., Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187 (1943); United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 145-47 (1871); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441,448-49 (1850). But see Al......
  • Guantanamo, Boumediene, and jurisdiction-stripping: the imperial president meets the imperial court.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 25 No. 3, June 2009
    • June 22, 2009
    ...text; see also note 25 and text following note 35. (24.) See, e.g., Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944); Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938); Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.)......

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