Bowles v. Willingham

Supreme Court of the United States
64 S. Ct. 641, 321 U.S. 503, 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1202 (1944)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under its war powers, Congress may constitutionally authorize an administrative agency to set maximum rents that are "generally fair and equitable" on a class-wide basis. This does not constitute an improper delegation of legislative power or a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, even if landlords are not provided with a hearing before the rent-fixing order becomes effective, so long as a mechanism for subsequent judicial review exists.

Facts:

During World War II, Congress passed the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 to combat inflation, authorizing an Administrator to control prices and rents.
On April 28, 1942, the Administrator designated Macon, Georgia, as a "defense-rental area" due to increased housing demand from war-related activities.
The Administrator then issued a regulation setting maximum rents in Macon, generally based on the rents charged on April 1, 1941.
Mrs. Willingham owned three apartments that had not been rented on the April 1, 1941 base date, but were first rented in the summer of 1941.
In June 1943, the Rent Director notified Mrs. Willingham that he intended to issue an order to decrease her rents.
The proposed decrease was based on the ground that the initial rent she charged was higher than the rent generally prevailing for comparable housing in the area on April 1, 1941.
Mrs. Willingham filed objections, but the Rent Director informed her he would proceed with issuing the rent reduction order.

Procedural Posture:

Mrs. Willingham sued the Price Administrator in a Georgia state court to enjoin the issuance of rent reduction orders.
The state court issued a temporary injunction against the federal Administrator.
The Administrator then filed suit in the U.S. District Court to enjoin Mrs. Willingham from pursuing the state court action and violating the Act.
The U.S. District Court dismissed the Administrator's suit, holding that the rent control provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act were unconstitutional.
The Administrator (as appellant) filed a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the rent control provision of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, authorizing an administrator to set maximum rents without a prior hearing, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and a deprivation of property without due process under the Fifth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Douglas

No. The rent control provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 are a constitutional exercise of Congress's war powers. The Act does not improperly delegate legislative authority, as Congress established a clear policy to control wartime inflation, provided an intelligible principle to guide the Administrator, and set boundaries on his authority. The standard requiring rents to be 'generally fair and equitable' does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as price-fixing on a class-wide basis is permissible and does not constitute a 'taking' of property, especially when landlords are not compelled to rent their properties. Furthermore, the lack of a pre-enforcement hearing does not violate procedural due process in a wartime emergency, as the provision for subsequent judicial review in the Emergency Court of Appeals is adequate to protect property rights.

Concurring - Justice Rutledge

No. The rent control provisions of the Act are constitutional as applied in this civil enforcement proceeding. While rent control is ordinarily a state function, the federal government's war power provides an adequate basis for this legislation. The special procedure limiting challenges to a protest and review by the Emergency Court of Appeals is constitutionally adequate for resolving civil disputes over property rights, unlike in criminal proceedings where personal liberty is at stake. Because Mrs. Willingham failed to use the adequate, exclusive remedy Congress provided, she is foreclosed from challenging the validity of the regulation in this enforcement action.

Dissenting - Justice Roberts

Yes. The rent control provisions of the Act are an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The statute provides no meaningful standards to guide the Administrator's discretion; terms like 'defense-rental area' and 'generally fair and equitable' are so vague that they allow the Administrator to make law based on his personal judgment. Congress has delegated the law-making power 'in toto' to an administrative officer, creating 'personal government by a petty tyrant instead of government by law.' The purported judicial review is illusory, as no court could meaningfully assess the Administrator's unfettered discretion, effectively overruling the principles of Schechter Corp. v. United States.

Analysis:

This case, decided alongside Yakus v. United States, represents a high-water mark for the non-delegation doctrine's deference to Congress, particularly under the war powers. It affirmed the government's broad authority to enact sweeping economic controls through administrative agencies during national emergencies. The decision solidified the principle that as long as Congress provides an 'intelligible principle,' even a very broad one, the delegation is constitutional. It also confirmed that procedural due process is flexible, allowing for post-deprivation remedies to suffice for property rights, especially when wartime exigencies require swift government action.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bowles v. Willingham (1944)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature