Lockerty v. Phillips
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 182 (1943)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
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…
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.