United Labor Committee v. Woods

• Decision Date: 12 July 1949
• Docket Number: No. 508.,508.
• Citation: 175 F.2d 967
• Parties: UNITED LABOR COMMITTEE et al. v. WOODS, Housing Expediter.
• Court: U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

175 F.2d 967 (1949)

UNITED LABOR COMMITTEE et al. v. WOODS, Housing Expediter.

No. 508.

United States Emergency Court of Appeals.

Heard July 6, 1949.

Decided July 12, 1949.

Robert M. Segal, Boston, Mass. (Arthur J. Goldberg and Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for complainants.

Charles P. Liff, Chief, Appeals Section, Washington, D. C. (Ed Dupree, General Counsel, Washington, D. C., both of the Office of the Housing Expediter, on the brief), for respondent.

Before MARIS, Chief Judge, and MAGRUDER and LINDLEY, Judges.

Heard at Boston July 6, 1949.

MARIS, Chief Judge.

This is a complaint filed against the Housing Expediter by a representative group of tenants in the Eastern Massachusetts Defense-Rental Area under Section 204(e) (4) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended by Section 203(e) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1949, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 1894(e) (4). The decision of the Housing Expediter which is complained against was incorporated in Amendment 84,¹ issued April 12, 1949, to the Controlled Housing Rent Regulation, under which general increases in maximum rents ranging from 2% to 17% were authorized for housing accommodations in structures containing four or less dwelling units located in 76 cities and towns in the Eastern Massachusetts Defense-Rental Area.

It appears that Rent Advisory Board No. 1 of the Eastern Massachusetts Defense-Rental Area in the latter part of 1948 conducted a survey in the municipalities in question with the assistance of the staff of the Expediter to determine the amount by which property taxes had increased in each of these municipalities since 1942. Upon completion of the survey and without holding a public hearing as provided by Section 204(e) (4) (A) of the act, the local board on March 11, 1949 submitted its recommendation to the Expediter pursuant, as it stated, "to Section 204(e) (3) of the Housing and Rent Act" by which it recommended the increases in maximum rents for the municipalities in question which, with two exceptions, were later incorporated by the Expediter in Amendment 84. With its recommendation the board submitted the evidence which it had considered, consisting of the results of the tax survey which it had conducted. The increases in maximum rents which the board recommended were based solely upon the increases in taxes which the survey indicated had taken place in the municipalities in question since 1942.

It may be noted at this point that the board initiated its investigation, and made its recommendation, under the provisions of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 and the applicable administrative regulations thereunder, as they existed prior to the amendments of that act made by the Housing and Rent Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1881 et seq. However, the Expediter issued Amendment 84 to the regulation after the 1949 amendments of the act had been enacted.

The complainants attack upon two grounds the action of the Expediter which was incorporated into Amendment 84.

The first ground relates to the procedure whereby the rent increases represented by Amendment 84 were effected. Conceding that the Expediter is empowered by the act to grant general rent increases upon his own initiative, the complainants contend that in this case the action was not upon his own initiative, but that on the contrary he merely approved and put into effect a recommendation by a local board which, they strongly urge, was fatally defective in that the board did not comply with the procedural requirements of Section 204(e) (4).² The Expediter, conceding that the procedural requirements of that subsection were not met by the local board, asserts that the recommendation which the board made was not intended to be made under that subsection but was merely an advisory recommendation which, as the board stated, was made under Section 204 (e) (3) and which he might approve or disapprove in his discretion without judicial review of his action by this court, as the act stood prior to the 1949 amendments. Accordingly, he asserts, his acceptance of the recommendation was action "on his own initiative" within the meaning of the statute, which it was within his power to take.

In order to understand the question thus raised, it becomes necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the law involved and their chronology. Local advisory boards were first provided for by the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, Section 204(e) (1) (B) of which authorized them to make recommendations as to the "adequacy of the general rent level" in the area. The Expediter was, by Section 204(b) of the 1947 act, empowered to make adjustments necessary "to correct inequities or further to carry out the purposes and provisions" of the legislation. Substantially similar provisions were retained in these subsections as they were amended by the 1948 act. That act also amended Section 204(e) (3) of the 1947 act to read:

"Upon receipt of any recommendation from a local board, the Housing Expediter shall promptly notify the local board, in writing, of the date of his receipt of such recommendation. Except as provided hereinafter in this subsection, within thirty days after receipt of any recommendation of a local board such recommendation shall be approved or disapproved or the local board shall be notified in writing of the reasons why final action cannot be taken in thirty days. Any recommendation of a local board appropriately substantiated and in accordance with applicable law and regulations shall be approved and appropriate action shall promptly be taken to carry such recommendation into effect."

Section 204(e) (4) as amended by the 1948 act provided, for the first time, for recommendations by local boards to be made after due notice and public hearings, which if not approved by the Expediter, automatically came to this court for approval or disapproval.

In June 1948, following the enactment of the 1948 law, the Expediter issued his "Handbook for Rent Advisory Boards," having the effect of a regulation,³ in which he defined the procedure to be followed by local advisory boards. He interpreted the law as amended by the 1948 act as providing for two different kinds of recommendations by such boards. The first consisted of those made under Section 204(e) (4) after public hearing and upon a formal record which, it not approved, were to be brought to this court for final action. After outlining the procedure relating to recommendations of this sort, the Expediter in his Handbook defined the other type of recommendations in these words:

"In addition, it should be noted that Rent Advisory Boards are not limited to the procedure set forth above in making recommendations for decontrol or for adjustments in the general rent level. Under the authority of Section 204(e) (3) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1948, boards have the alternative of continuing to use the method of making recommendations heretofore available, namely: The board submits its recommendation and its evidence to the Housing Expediter and there is no requirement for hearings and preparation of a record. * * * The Housing Expediter approves or disapproves the recommendation based upon whether it is appropriately substantiated and in accordance with applicable law and regulations. The approval or disapproval of the Housing Expediter is final under this method and there is no referral to the Emergency Court of Appeals."

In the face of this interpretation the Congress in enacting the 1949 amendments retained the provisions of Section 204(e) (3), adding only certain language not here relevant. Under well known principles, the reenactment of a statute which has been construed in a certain manner by the officer charged with administering it is weighty evidence that Congress approved the administrative interpretation.⁴

When the board submitted its recommendation to the Expediter, it expressly stated, as we have seen, that it was doing so under Section 204(e) (3). It announced publicly also that the recommendation would not be effective until and unless approved by the Expediter. It made no attempt to make a recommendation under the more formal procedure of Section 204 (e) (4). This action reflects clearly the intent of the board to pass on to the Expediter the final decision as to whether the recommended increases in maximum rents should be effectuated.

The Expediter insists that his promulgation of Amendment 84 was based upon his own judgment, fortified as it was by the evidence that the board submitted. That he has power to make general adjustments of maximum rents on his own initiative is conceded by complainants. In doing so, of course, he may rely upon relevant evidence from any source. He may likewise consider recommendations which come to him from any source and give them such weight as he finds they are entitled to. It accordingly matters not that in Amendment 84 the Expediter indicated that his action was "based upon the recommendation of the Local Advisory Board". For the fact remains that the recommendation was made under Section 204(e) (3) as interpreted by the Expediter and not under Section 204(e) (4), and accordingly the evidence which the board transmitted with its recommendation was submitted, not as a foundation...