Lockerty v. Phillips

319 U.S. 182 (1943)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lockerty v. Phillips

United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 182 (1943)

Facts

A maximum-price regulation promulgated under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (the act) set maximum wholesale prices for cuts of beef. Each sale above the maximum price subjected the seller to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment. Wholesale meat merchants including Clem Lockerty (the merchants) (plaintiffs) brought an action in federal district court against Charles Phillips (defendant), the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, seeking an injunction restraining Phillips from prosecuting the merchants for violating the act. The merchants alleged that industry conditions prevented them from complying with the price regulation and that enforcing the regulation would put them out of business, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The merchants did not follow the act’s specified protest procedure prior to bringing their action. Under that procedure, a person could file a protest of a regulation promulgated under the act with the act’s price administrator. If the administrator denied the protest, the protestor could file a complaint with a three-federal-judge emergency court of appeals to ask that the regulation be enjoined or set aside. The emergency court’s decision was reviewable by the United States Supreme Court. Section 204(d) of the act provided that the emergency court and Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any regulations and price schedules issued under the act and further provided that no other federal or state court had the jurisdiction or power to consider the validity of the regulations and price schedules or to enjoin their enforcement. The district court dismissed the merchants’ action for lack of jurisdiction, and the merchants appealed. On appeal, the merchants’ arguments included that Section 204(d) improperly restricted plaintiffs’ ability to challenge the act’s constitutionality in federal court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stone, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership