From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co.
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 535 (1954)
Facts
At the start of the Korean War, Congress enacted the Defense Production Act of 1950, creating a system of wage and price controls. The president created the Wage Stabilization Board (the board) (plaintiff) to enforce the wage controls, and the board created the National Enforcement Commission (the commission) to determine whether wage violations identified by the board had actually occurred. Grand Central Aircraft Co. (Grand Central) (defendant) produced and repaired aircraft. The board filed a complaint with the commission against Grand Central, alleging that Grand Central had enacted an unlawful wage increase. Before a hearing a held, Grand Central filed a lawsuit in federal district court to enjoin the hearing, arguing that the president was not authorized by the Defense Production Act to create the board to enforce wage controls. Grand Central asserted that the power to enforce the Defense Production Act was instead vested in federal district courts. To support its claim for injunctive relief, Grand Central argued that it would suffer irreparable harm if it was forced to go through the proposed hearing before the commission. The district court enjoined the hearing. The board appealed, arguing that a hearing had to be held before Grand Central could claim that it had suffered irreparable harm. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.