Lichter v. United States
92 L. Ed. 2d 1694, 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2705, 68 S.Ct. 1294 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under its broad constitutional war powers, Congress may authorize administrative agencies to recapture excessive profits realized on war-related contracts, and may require contractors to challenge such determinations exclusively through a specialized administrative tribunal before seeking judicial review.
Facts:
- During 1942, Jacob and Jennie Lichter, a partnership, performed work on nine subcontracts for war-related construction projects.
- Four of the Lichters' subcontracts were executed before the passage of the first Renegotiation Act on April 28, 1942, but final payment had not yet been made on them.
- A.V. Pownall and partners, doing business as General Products Company, produced precision parts and tools for war contractors under various contracts and subcontracts during 1943.
- Alexander Wool Combing Company was engaged in the business of scouring and combing wool for private companies during 1942 and 1943, knowing that some of the processed wool was destined for use in government contracts.
- For each of these contractors, the Under Secretary of War or the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board determined that a portion of the profits they realized during the relevant fiscal years was 'excessive' under the Renegotiation Act.
- None of the contractors' agreements initially contained a clause permitting the government to renegotiate their prices or profits.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued Jacob and Jennie Lichter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to recover excessive profits. The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States.
- The Lichters (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The United States sued A.V. Pownall and partners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The District Court rendered judgment for the United States.
- Pownall (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the judgment.
- The United States sued Alexander Wool Combing Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court entered judgment for the United States.
- Alexander Wool Combing Co. (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the judgment.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear all three cases.
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 Renegotiation Act, by empowering administrative officials to determine and recover 'excessive profits' from government contractors without a precise statutory formula, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in violation of the separation of powers?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burton
No, the Renegotiation Act does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The authority granted was a lawful delegation of administrative authority because Congress's power to wage war is the power to wage it successfully, which necessitates broad discretion in mobilizing the nation's resources. The statutory standard of 'excessive profits,' while flexible, provided a sufficient 'intelligible principle' for administrative guidance, especially in the context of an unprecedented wartime emergency where precise cost calculations were impossible. The legislative standard was further clarified by administrative practices that were later codified by Congress. Moreover, the Act provided procedural due process by allowing aggrieved contractors a de novo redetermination in the Tax Court, which is the exclusive remedy that must be exhausted before any judicial review.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
For the Lichter case, the failure to petition the Tax Court should not preclude a hearing in the District Court. A close reading of the 1943 amendments to the Renegotiation Act suggests that the provision making administrative orders 'final and conclusive' does not apply to orders from a Secretary (as opposed to the Board) concerning fiscal years ending before July 1, 1943, such as the Lichters' 1942 profits. Therefore, for this specific category of early war contracts, the path to the Tax Court was an optional, not a mandatory, remedy. The Lichters should have retained their right to challenge the government's determination in a traditional court proceeding.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly establishes the vast scope of Congress's war powers to regulate the national economy and control wartime profiteering. It affirms the principle that during a national crisis, Congress can delegate significant authority to administrative agencies with flexible standards, so long as an 'intelligible principle' guides their discretion. The ruling also powerfully reinforces the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, cementing the role of specialized tribunals like the Tax Court as the mandatory first step for challenging specific agency actions. This precedent has been crucial in justifying broad executive and administrative action during subsequent national emergencies.
