M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. v. United States
1946 U.S. LEXIS 2613, 66 S. Ct. 705, 327 U.S. 614 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In order to sustain a criminal conviction under a regulation, the regulation's provisions must be explicit and unambiguous, clearly informing those subject to its terms what conduct is prohibited. Vague or general anti-evasion language in a price control regulation is insufficient to criminalize a 'tying agreement' where a valuable secondary commodity is sold at its market price unless the regulation expressly forbids such conduct.
Facts:
- M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. ('petitioner') was a wholesale poultry business operating in New York City.
- During the Thanksgiving season of 1943, under wartime conditions, the demand for poultry far exceeded the available supply.
- The Price Administrator, under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, had set maximum ceiling prices for poultry.
- No price ceilings had been established for chicken feet or chicken skin.
- As a condition for selling poultry to retail butchers, the petitioner required them to also purchase chicken feet and chicken skin.
- The petitioner billed the poultry at the legal ceiling price and billed the chicken parts at a separate price.
- Some retail butchers testified that they did not want the chicken parts and were forced to either give them away or discard them.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed two informations in federal trial court against M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. and its president, alleging willful evasion of price regulations.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the key question was whether the sale of chicken parts was a necessary condition for the purchase of poultry.
- The jury acquitted the president but returned a guilty verdict against the corporation on nine counts.
- The corporation appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, with one judge dissenting.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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 a general anti-evasion provision in a price control regulation, which prohibits evading price ceilings 'in conjunction with any other commodity,' criminally prohibit a 'tying agreement' where the tied secondary commodity has value and is sold at its market price?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. A general anti-evasion provision in a price control regulation does not criminally prohibit a 'tying agreement' involving a valuable secondary commodity sold at its market price unless such conduct is explicitly forbidden. Criminal regulations must be strictly construed and provide clear, unambiguous notice of the prohibited conduct. The language prohibiting evasion 'in conjunction with any other commodity' is not specific enough to outlaw all tying agreements. While it clearly prohibits arrangements involving worthless or artificially priced secondary goods as a disguised price hike, it does not clearly forbid tying agreements for valuable goods at market price. The Administrator explicitly banned all tying agreements in regulations for other commodities (like meat and clothing), demonstrating he knew how to do so when intended. The absence of such specific language for poultry means the regulation did not provide fair warning that this conduct was criminal. Therefore, the trial judge's instruction that the only issue was whether a tie-in existed was erroneous, as it failed to consider the value of the secondary goods.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The petitioner's practice of forcing butchers to buy unwanted chicken parts to get wanted turkeys constitutes a criminal evasion of the Price Control Act. The regulation was designed to prohibit all ingenious schemes and artifices used to circumvent price ceilings, not just those explicitly listed. Forcing the purchase of unwanted items effectively increased the cost of the primary commodity beyond the legal ceiling, which is a direct violation of the letter and policy of the law enacted to protect the public from gouging during a wartime food shortage. The regulation’s general language against evasion is sufficient to condemn this thinly disguised subterfuge.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. A tying agreement does not per se violate the regulation, but a conviction could be warranted if the tied product had no value to the purchaser or was sold for more than its market value. The core issue is whether the price of the primary commodity was effectively inflated. If the tied-in commodity is worthless or has no value to the particular market (here, the retailers), then requiring its purchase is an evasion. The trial court erred by removing this basic issue from the jury and focusing solely on whether a tie-in occurred. The case should be remanded for a new trial to determine the actual value of the chicken parts in the context of these sales.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Rutledge
No. Administrative regulations defining criminal conduct must be construed as narrowly as criminal statutes and cannot be given a broader interpretation. The Administrator explicitly banned tying agreements in regulations for other commodities but not for poultry. A reasonable person reading the regulations would be entitled to conclude that where the Administrator did not expressly forbid the practice, it was not prohibited by general anti-evasion language. It is impermissible to construe the vague provision for poultry as having the same effect as the specific prohibitions for other goods. Therefore, the tie-in sales were not forbidden as to poultry at the time of these events.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark application of the rule of lenity, requiring strict construction of criminal statutes and, by extension, administrative regulations that carry criminal penalties. The decision establishes that for an act to be criminal under an administrative scheme, the governing regulation must provide explicit and unambiguous notice of the proscribed conduct. It prevents courts and prosecutors from expanding the scope of criminal liability based on the perceived policy or purpose of a statute, placing a significant drafting burden on administrative agencies. Consequently, agencies must be highly specific when defining criminal violations, as any ambiguity will be resolved in favor of the defendant.
