490:, 319 U.S. 182 (1943), several wholesale meat sellers sued to prevent the US Attorney from prosecuting them if they violated the price regulations. Among many arguments, one was that Congress lacked the authority to "carve up" jurisdiction in this form. Pursuant to the Act, the district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, writing that "he Congressional power to ordain and establish inferior courts includes the power of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent, or exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good." That is, what Congress can give--federal courts--Congress can take away, and therefore, limit as well, even if it was by issue.
248:
24:
589:, which governs when Congress can assign work to non-legislative bodies, such as the executive or judicial branches, and which work and to whom such work can be assigned. The resulting holding--which many believed to be in error--would alter American administrative jurisprudence for almost fifty years.
600:
The standards prescribed by the present Act, with the aid of the "statement of the considerations" required to be made by the
Administrator, are sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts and the public to ascertain whether the administrator, in fixing the designated prices, has
573:
found that the Act did, and that there was "no denial of due process" in the statutory provisions that denied the ability of the
Emergency Court to grant, among other things, temporary stays or injunctions. This was especially so because the alternatives (wartime inflation or requiring individuals to
626:
cure a problem of delegation? The problem of delegation is one of excessive legislative power transferred to the executive branch--the delegation problem happens at the time of the passage of the statute. The act of an executive agency limiting that power is too late and does not correct the problem
532:
also argued that the
Emergency Court was inadequate to protect their constitutional rights because the Emergency Court could not issue interlocutory relief. However, the Court declined to discuss whether the Emergency Court served as an adequate constitutional rights protector, noting that the Act
424:
those relating to enjoining violations of the act/securing orders of compliance, treble damage actions, and criminal prosecutions for willful violations. For these, the
Emergency Court shared jurisdiction with state courts. If anyone disagreed with an action taken by the Administrator (such as a
415:
court which had all "the powers of a district court with respect to the jurisdiction conferred on it," except it lacked the ability to issue temporary restraining orders or interlocutory decrees that would stay the effectiveness of any order, regulation, or price schedule issued by the Price
517:, establishing the federal court system we know today--they are subject to limitations emanating from Article III and other constitutional provisions. For example, Congress cannot prohibit all African Americans from bringing a lawsuit, as this would independently violate
425:
price set), she would file a protest with the
Administrator and if that was denied, she had thirty days to file a complaint with the Emergency Court. She could not file in any other district court, and the Emergency Court decisions were appealleable directly to the
525:. In addition, Congress potential could not, for example, allow discrimination cases to only be filed in-person in the District Court of Puerto Rico, as this might substantially burden the ability of citizens to assert their constitutional rights.
640:
denied that the
Supreme Court had ever adopted such a stance on constitutional law: "We have never suggested that an agency can cure an unlawful delegation of legislative power by adopting in its discretion a limiting construction of the statute."
613:
delegation of power through a narrowing construction constraining that agency's own discretion. This would become a key principle in
American constitutional law and would be followed by lower courts in striking down challenges to laws based on the
406:
The
Emergency Price Control Act engendered significant controversy regarding delegation of Congressional power, executive wartime authority, and Congressional control of federal jurisdiction. Much of this stemmed from the Act's creation of the
172:
554:, the plaintiff--also a meat producer--had already been found to violate the Act. He was prosecuted under the Act with the potential for a criminal action. Yakus sought to raise the same issues as the plaintiffs in
574:
comply with a price regulation while its validity was still being determined), "Congress could constitutionally make the choice in favor of the protection of the public interest from the dangers of inflation."
756:
in part on the basis that it was during wartime, and holding that outside wartime, an enforcement court could not predicate a finding of a criminal violation on an administrative proceeding lacking due
470:. The Emergency Price Control Act and the associated Emergency Court of Appeals raised several questions about the relationship between Congress and the Federal Judiciary: (1) Can Congress "
329:
schedules by the Office of Price
Administration. The law specified a time limit whereas orders, price schedules, regulations, and requirements by the Act were to terminate by June 30, 1943.
596:
was a major development of
American nondelegation law. Chief Justice Stone argued that an administrative agency could self-correct a problem of delegation if it limited its own power:
522:
34:
An Act to further the national defense and security by checking speculative and excessive price rises, price dislocations, and inflationary tendencies, and for other purposes.
849:
168:
558:(non-delegation--discussed below--due process (the inadequacy of the Emergency Court), and that the price was set too low), but does so by way of defenses for his action.
533:
had a severability clause that, in the event of the interlocutory relief section being found unconstitutional, other provisions would take effect, thus saving the Act.
627:(it really only limits the problem). Allowing the agency to correct a delegation problem is liking locking the barn doors after all the horses have already escaped.
632:
412:
859:
478:
answered yes, though its understanding of the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches may have been informed by the exigencies of war.
501:
clause that, in the event of the interlocutory relief section being found unconstitutional, other provisions would take effect, thus saving the Act.
497:. However, the Court declined to discuss whether the Emergency Court served as an adequate constitutional rights protector, noting that the Act had a
474:" federal jurisdiction in this way? (2) If yes, is the creation of the Emergency Court--with all its limits--constitutional? To both questions, the
675:
493:
Plaintiffs also argued that the Emergency Court was inadequate to protect their constitutional rights because the Emergency Court could not issue
467:
463:
447:
844:
601:
conformed to those standards . . . Hence we are unable to find in them an unauthorized delegation of legislative power. 321 U.S. at 426.
135:
775:
475:
426:
122:
854:
702:"Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Executive Order 8734 Establishing the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply.," April 11, 1941"
247:
660:
259:
103:
95:
670:
283:
459:
56:
408:
79:
239:
23:
494:
263:
864:
518:
769:
For a discussion on the clarity and forethought that went into authoring the Emergency Price Control Act,
680:
615:
586:
538:
471:
443:
438:
314:
271:
509:
To understand this question, it is necessary to understand a bit about Article III. Article III does not
514:
298:
287:
223:
830:. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research (FRASER): 1–122.
275:
807:
794:
720:
566:
318:
129:
738:
See Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System
819:
808:"Message to the Congress Asking for Quick Action to Stabilize the Economy - September 7, 1942"
158:
585:
also questioned the constitutionality of the Emergency Price Control Act with respect to the
565:
Court treated as the central issue to the case whether the Emergency Court review procedure "
655:
721:"Statement by the President on Signing the Emergency Price Control Act - January 30, 1942"
570:
279:
650:
637:
310:
795:"The President Outlines a Seven-Point Economic Stabilization Program - April 27, 1942"
325:. The Act provided authority for enforcement, investigative reporting, and reviews of
213:
191:
838:
665:
442:, 321 U.S. 414 (1944)--continue to inform understandings of the relationship between
322:
205:
181:
513:
Congress to create lower federal courts, but when Congress does--as they did in the
567:
affords to those affected a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence
498:
417:
326:
88:
309:
The Emergency Price Control Act was penned as three titles specifying rulings for
139:
536:
The Court did discuss the constitutionality of the Emergency Court's limits in
701:
294:
814:. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. pp. 356–368.
801:. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. pp. 216–227.
267:
622:
principle was logically flawed however: how could an administrative agency
823:
727:. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. pp. 67–73.
297:
was passed by the 77th U.S. Congressional session and enacted into law by
505:
Is the Emergency Court of Appeals, With its Restrictions, Constitutional?
824:"Changes in Cost of Living in Large Cities in the United States 1913-41"
39:
107:
286:(OPA) as a federal independent agency being officially created by
246:
278:
to support the United States national defense and security. The
609:
held that an administrative agency could "save" an otherwise
420:
to hear complaints relating to actions of the Administrator
416:
Administrator of the Act. The Emergency Court had exclusive
458:
Federal Courts is the study of the relationship between
776:
The Constitutionality of the 1942 Price Control Act
233:
145:
128:
118:
113:
94:
75:
70:
62:
51:
38:
30:
80:
752:, 481 U.S. 828, 839 n. 15 (1987) (distinguishing
633:Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.
341:Prices, Rents, And Market And Renting Practices
630:The Supreme Court came to this conclusion in
546:the Emergency Price Control Act was attacked
482:Can Congress "Carve Up" Federal Jurisdiction?
454:Impact on the Understanding of Federal Courts
8:
806:Roosevelt, Franklin D. (September 7, 1942).
16:
719:Roosevelt, Franklin D. (January 30, 1942).
850:United States federal currency legislation
708:. University of California, Santa Barbara.
198:Reported by the joint conference committee
173:Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
793:Roosevelt, Franklin D. (April 27, 1942).
333:Title I: General Provisions and Authority
355:Title II: Administration and Enforcement
692:
676:Standard of living in the United States
274:of goods and services while providing
15:
7:
765:
763:
338:Purposes, Time Limits, Applicability
860:Emergency laws in the United States
266:as restrictive measures to control
256:Emergency Price Control Act of 1942
123:50 U.S.C.: War and National Defense
17:Emergency Price Control Act of 1942
750:See United States v. Mendoza-Lopez
700:Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T.
157:in the House as H.R. 5990 by
85:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
14:
661:Office of Economic Stabilization
542:, 321 U.S. 414 (1944). While in
363:Investigations, Records, Reports
22:
822:; Stewart, Stella (June 1941).
706:The American Presidency Project
671:Rationing in the United States
618:for the next fifty years. The
284:Office of Price Administration
1:
779:, 30 Cal. L. Rev. 648 (1942).
578:Impact on Administrative Law
845:77th United States Congress
436:, 319 U.S. 182 (1943), and
397:Application Of Existing Law
180:on November 28, 1941 (
57:77th United States Congress
881:
569:." Writing for the Court,
409:Emergency Court of Appeals
212:on January 27, 1942 (
204:on January 26, 1942 (
190:on January 10, 1942 (
169:House Banking and Currency
161:(D-AL) on November 7, 1941
828:Research Bulletin No. 699
394:Appropriations Authorized
240:Stabilization Act of 1942
238:
150:
21:
855:World War II legislation
740:342-345 (7th ed. 2015).
448:federal judiciary system
380:Title III: Miscellaneous
344:Agricultural Commodities
315:agricultural commodities
165:Committee consideration
681:Nondelegation Doctrine
616:nondelegation doctrine
603:
587:nondelegation doctrine
539:Yakus v. United States
468:branches of government
439:Yakus v. United States
268:inflationary spiraling
251:
202:agreed to by the House
598:
515:Judiciary Act of 1789
432:Two important cases--
305:Provisions of the Act
301:on January 30, 1942.
299:Franklin D. Roosevelt
288:Franklin D. Roosevelt
264:economic intervention
260:United States statute
250:
224:Franklin D. Roosevelt
200:on January 10, 1942;
495:interlocutory relief
488:Lockerty v. Phillips
434:Lockerty v. Phillips
350:Voluntary Agreements
571:Chief Justice Stone
327:price stabilization
290:on April 11, 1941.
276:economic efficiency
226:on January 30, 1942
146:Legislative history
18:
319:goods and services
272:pricing elasticity
252:
820:Williams, Faith M
773:Joseph W. Aldin,
375:Saving Provisions
245:
244:
188:Passed the Senate
159:Henry B. Steagall
97:Statutes at Large
872:
831:
815:
812:Internet Archive
802:
799:Internet Archive
780:
767:
758:
747:
741:
735:
729:
728:
725:Internet Archive
716:
710:
709:
697:
656:Great Depression
611:unconstitutional
519:Equal Protection
466:, and the other
385:Quarterly Report
282:established the
234:Major amendments
178:Passed the House
132:sections created
98:
86:
82:
66:January 30, 1942
44:
26:
19:
880:
879:
875:
874:
873:
871:
870:
869:
835:
834:
818:
805:
792:
789:
784:
783:
768:
761:
748:
744:
736:
732:
718:
717:
713:
699:
698:
694:
689:
647:
636:. In so doing,
592:The holding in
580:
507:
484:
456:
404:
381:
356:
334:
307:
280:Act of Congress
229:
220:Signed into law
136:50a U.S.C.
96:
84:
52:Enacted by
42:
12:
11:
5:
878:
876:
868:
867:
865:Price controls
862:
857:
852:
847:
837:
836:
833:
832:
816:
803:
788:
787:External links
785:
782:
781:
759:
742:
730:
711:
691:
690:
688:
685:
684:
683:
678:
673:
668:
663:
658:
653:
651:Cost of living
646:
643:
638:Justice Scalia
579:
576:
528:Plaintiffs in
523:14th Amendment
506:
503:
483:
480:
464:federal courts
455:
452:
403:
400:
399:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
379:
377:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
361:
360:Administration
354:
352:
351:
348:
345:
342:
339:
332:
311:price controls
306:
303:
293:The H.R. 5990
243:
242:
236:
235:
231:
230:
228:
227:
217:
195:
185:
175:
162:
151:
148:
147:
143:
142:
133:
126:
125:
120:
119:Titles amended
116:
115:
111:
110:
100:
92:
91:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
53:
49:
48:
45:
36:
35:
32:
28:
27:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
877:
866:
863:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
846:
843:
842:
840:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
804:
800:
796:
791:
790:
786:
778:
777:
772:
771:see generally
766:
764:
760:
755:
751:
746:
743:
739:
734:
731:
726:
722:
715:
712:
707:
703:
696:
693:
686:
682:
679:
677:
674:
672:
669:
667:
666:Price ceiling
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
648:
644:
642:
639:
635:
634:
628:
625:
621:
617:
612:
608:
602:
597:
595:
590:
588:
584:
577:
575:
572:
568:
564:
559:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
534:
531:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
504:
502:
500:
496:
491:
489:
481:
479:
477:
476:Supreme Court
473:
469:
465:
461:
453:
451:
449:
445:
441:
440:
435:
430:
428:
427:Supreme Court
423:
419:
414:
410:
401:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
383:
382:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
358:
357:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
336:
335:
330:
328:
324:
323:real property
320:
316:
312:
304:
302:
300:
296:
291:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
249:
241:
237:
232:
225:
222:by President
221:
218:
215:
211:
208:) and by the
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:
149:
144:
141:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
121:
117:
112:
109:
105:
101:
99:
93:
90:
83:
78:
74:
69:
65:
61:
58:
54:
50:
46:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
20:
827:
811:
798:
774:
770:
753:
749:
745:
737:
733:
724:
714:
705:
695:
631:
629:
623:
619:
610:
606:
604:
599:
593:
591:
582:
581:
562:
560:
555:
551:
547:
543:
537:
535:
529:
527:
510:
508:
499:severability
492:
487:
485:
460:state courts
457:
437:
433:
431:
421:
418:jurisdiction
405:
391:Separability
378:
353:
347:Prohibitions
331:
308:
292:
262:imposing an
255:
253:
219:
209:
201:
197:
187:
177:
164:
154:
114:Codification
43:(colloquial)
548:offensively
413:Article III
388:Definitions
372:Enforcement
295:legislation
839:Categories
687:References
521:under the
313:regarding
155:Introduced
140:§ 901
76:Public law
31:Long title
757:process).
366:Procedure
71:Citations
63:Effective
645:See also
556:Lockerty
544:Lockerty
530:Lockerty
472:carve up
446:and the
444:Congress
102:56
40:Acronyms
511:require
206:289-114
182:224-161
81:Pub. L.
624:itself
605:Thus,
422:except
402:Impact
369:Review
321:, and
210:Senate
138:
130:U.S.C.
106:
89:77–421
87:
754:Yakus
620:Yakus
607:Yakus
594:Yakus
583:Yakus
563:Yakus
552:Yakus
550:, in
411:, an
258:is a
214:65-14
104:Stat.
561:The
270:and
254:The
192:84-1
171:and
55:the
47:EPCA
486:In
450:.
167:by
841::
826:.
810:.
797:.
762:^
723:.
704:.
462:,
429:.
317:,
108:23
216:)
194:)
184:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
