Lockerty v. PhillipsAnnotate this Case
319 U.S. 182 (1943)
U.S. Supreme Court
Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943)
Lockerty v. Phillips
Argued May 3, 1943
Decided May 10, 1943
319 U.S. 182
1. The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 sets up a procedure whereby any person subject to any regulation or order promulgated under the Act may, on "protest" of the regulation or order, secure its review by the Administrator, and, if the protest is denied, the Act confers on the Emergency Court (and on the Supreme Court upon review of decisions of the Emergency Court) equity jurisdiction
to restrain the enforcement of regulations or price orders under that Act, and withdraws that jurisdiction from every other court, state or federal. P. 319 U. S. 186.
2. The Constitution does not require Congress to confer equity jurisdiction on any particular inferior federal court. P. 319 U. S. 187.
3. Congress had power to restrict the equity jurisdiction to restrain enforcement of the Emergency Price Control Act, or of regulations under it, to the Emergency Court, and, upon review of its decisions, to this Court, and to require that a plaintiff seeking such equitable relief resort to the Emergency Court only after pursuing the prescribed administrative procedure. P. 319 U. S. 188.
4. The Emergency Price Control Act, § 204(d), in providing that "no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to . . . restrain, enjoin, or set aside . . . any provision of this Act," is not open to the objection that it withholds from all courts authority to pass upon the constitutionality of any provision of the Act or of any order or regulation under it. The Act itself, § 204, saves to the Emergency Court, and, upon review of its decisions, to this Court, authority to determine whether any regulation, order, or price schedule promulgated under it is "not in accordance with law," and this permits that the constitutional validity of the Act, and of orders and regulations under it, be so determined. P. 319 U. S. 188.
5. Assuming that review in the Emergency Court is inadequate to protect constitutional rights because § 204(c) prohibits all interlocutory relief by that court, the separability clause of § 303 would require that effect be given to the other provisions of § 204, including that which withholds from the district courts authority to enjoin enforcement of the Act. P. 319 U. S. 189.
49 F.Supp. 513 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court of three judges which dismissed for want of jurisdiction an appeal seeking an injunction against enforcement of price regulations prescribed under the Emergency Price Control Act.