# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — United States v. Moore > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0019%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1951 - **Citation:** 340 U.S. 616 ## Text whet a pp Se Canara, on ae ne een AB pores YAN Rees gee a BET ay OT vover mnny we arcane / INDEX - kaneis Page % al Opinions below... . RP ee mae aS me ta Jurisdiction ..... be tae en ee met = ae 2 Question presented as iat a SON 2 Statutes involved. aa ; ! Sean RL Ute ee ee eee Statement Cee Ea enn bak Reasons {gr granting the w writ ae wai eeeaes 6 ‘ Conclusion Pace Wi meey sss Bu ass ; 11 vs CITATIONS nome VASeS | A La Sa; ;: .. Bowles v. Skaggs, 151 F. 24 817,....0.6..0.. 00.002 9 Creedon vy. Randolph, 165 F.2d 918 0 - |. 9 Ebeling v. Woods, 175 F, 2d 242. .; hate 8. Fleming v. Mohawk Co., 331.U.8.11........00 4... 108 Jackson v. Woods, 182° F. 2d 338 ; are. «ae 9 Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 383 Ur 195 .. 6,7, 8, 9, 11 Woods v. Hills, 334 U.S. 210. | a . ae jh g pea ed Woods v. Richman, 174 F. 24 614... ; et, y Woods v. Wayne, 77 F.2d 559... ‘8 Woods v. Wolfe, 182 F. 2d 516... 2. ee, 8 Statutes: | x Act. of | goune 23, 1950, i Law 574, Slst Congress, 2d .. Ms tee Nias iar TL aE Pare 2 Emergency Price Control Aet of 1942 as amended, (56 - Stat. 23; 58 Stat. 632; 59 Stat. 306; 60 Stat. 664; 50 ; U.S.C. App. 901 et seq.: Section. 1(b) Sa oO AAW Oe F Py WI oie ek ane aye 9 Section 205 (a) ... ieee umes os stant Wee yuna ioe 4 Housing and Rent Act of 1947 (61 Stat..193; 62 Stat. a: 93: 63 Stat. 18; 50 U.S.C. App., Supp. TIT, i881let seq.: |, eet MN 8S, § 50 ek es Vaio ae 10 ES ee ear he eee «WW Section 204(f) Ser PEPER IE! DIRT» 10 Seetion 204()) ie «Pears a py 5 Section 206{a) . : i gt nels eee gir 2 Seetion 206(b) Aap Poke ee 3, 7,8, 10 Miscellaneous: Controlled Housing Rent Regulation, as amended, 12 F.R. . 4331, 13 F.R. 1861, 14 FR, 1571, 3494 os 4,5 — x (1) Inthe Supreme Court of the Wnited States OcroBER TERM, 1950 Na, — Unirep STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. WARREN VY. Moore AND Mrs. WARREN V. Moore e irecncemiag PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ™ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 758 FIFTH | CIRCUIT \ s The Solicitor Gene ‘al on behalf of the United States prays that a writ of ce rtiorari issue to re view the judgement of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the district court -(R. 17) is not reported. The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (R. 24) is reported in 182. F. 2d 332. (1) JURISDICTION. The judgment of the court below was entered on May 17, 1950 (R. 28). Petitions for rehearing were denied on July 17, 1950 (R. 40). The jurisdic- tion of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). ; QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the judicial authority contained in See- tion 206(b) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, to issue an ‘‘order enforcing compli- ‘ance’? with any provision of that Act or order is- sued thereunder, empowers a court to order a land- lord to make restitution of overceiling rentals re- ceived by him in a defense-rental evea which was Wa decontrolled after the occurrence of the violations but prior to the filing of the suit against ma tiand ; lord. ° | = Manne ee ' ", STATUTES INVOL The pertinent provisions of the statutes involved read as follows: - Ne Wy . The Housing and Rent Act of 1947 as amended | (61 Stat. 195; 62 Stat. 93; 63 Stat. 18; 50 U.S.C App. (Supp. ELT) 1891 et seq.:" Sec. 206(a) It shal! be unlawful for any person to demand, accept, or receive any rent for the use or eceupancy of any. controlled 'The Honsing and tent Act of 1947, as amended, was further amended and was extended to June 30, 1951 by_ the Act of June 23, 1950.) Pub. Law 474, 8Ist Cong., 2d sess. 3 ¢ housing ace ‘ommodations i in excess of the maxi- mum revit prescribed under section 204, or otherwisejto'do or omit to do any act, in viola- © tion of this Act, or of any regulation or order or ‘requirement under this Act, or.to offer, solicit, attempt, or agree te do any of the fore- Agoing. , — Src. 206(b) Whenever in the/ judgment of the Housing Expediter any person has en- gaged or is about to engage in any acts or prac- tices which constitute or will constitute a viola- tion of any provision of this Act, or any regu- lation or order issued thereunder, the United States may make application to any Federal, State, or Territorial court of -competent jur- isdiction for an order enjoining such acts or practices, or for an ofder enforcing compliance with such provision, and upon a showing that such person has ergaged or is about to engage in any suth acts or practices a per manent or * temporary injunction, restraining order, or other yrder shall be granted without bond. | . The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended (56 Stat. 23; 58 Stat, 632; 59 Stat, 306: GO Stat. 664; 50 U.S. C. App. 901 ef seq. Sree. 205. (a) Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator any- person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any provision of section 4 of this Act, he may make application ‘tothe appropriate court : (ey . \ 4 for an order enjoining such aets or practices, or for aorder enforeing compliance with such provision, ‘and upon a showing by the Admin- istrator that such pergen has engaved or is about to engage in a uch acts or practices a permanent or te ‘ary injunction, re- strainnig order, or otlheérder shall be granted Without bond. é “ $- STATEMENT Respondents Tarren v. Moore — Mrs. ren V. Moore are landlords of housing accommioda- tions in Dallas, Texas. Between October 1, 1947, =: and May 31, 1949, they denianded and received rents in excess of those permitted by the applica le maximum oni regulation * issued under the Hous- ing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Act’), Respondents. having refused to comply with the Act and regula- tion, petitioner Brought this action against them pursuant to Seetions 205 and 206(a) and (b) of the Act for statutory damages, injunctive relief, and for an order of restitution compelling resphndetits. to refund to their tenant the excess of rents col- lected over the legal maximum (RS), Prior to the filing of the suit, the Housing Expediter, pursuant to action taken by the City of Dallas under Section cme a aK ; ; “Controlled Housing Rent Regulation, as amended, 12 F. R. 4331; 13k R. 1861; 14 F. R. 1571. ) 204(j) (3) of the ‘Act,’ had.terminated federal rent controls in that city. 14 FR. 3494... Basing their action on the fact that rental housing in Dallas: Texas, had been decontrolled, respondents amoved to. dismiss the suit (R. 24).° Their motion was denied by the trial court without opinion (R. 2+). The suit was thereafter tried and resulted in a judgment directing respondents to make restitu- tion to the tenant, J. R. Qualls, in the amount of #1.093.48, and because of ‘‘some evidence * * * of wilfulness’’ the court'directed petitioners to pay to the United States statutory damages. in the amount -of $50.00 .(R. 18-19). Respondents appealed from this judgment * (h.. 11). —— 3 Section 204 (j) (3) at the time of the decontrol of rental housing in Dallas, Texas, read as follows: The Housing Expeciter shall terminate the provisions of this title in? day incorporated eity, town or village pon receipt of a resolution of its governing body adopted for that purpose in secordance with applicable local law and based upon a finding by such governing body reached as the result of a publie hearing held after HO days’ notice, that there no langer exists such a-shortage im rental housing. atcommodations as to require rent) control in such city, tows or village; Provided, however, That: such resolution is first approved by the Governor of the State before being -transmitted to the Housing Expediter: And provided further, That where the major portion of a de- fense-rental area has been decontroiled pursugnt to thes paragraph (3), the Housing -Expediter shall decontrol any unincorporated log: va! in the rem@under of such ares, [69 stat. 21; 50 U, . App. (Supp. TED) 189403) 134] ' The petition for certiorari i filed herein is directo’ golely te the ruling of the cou¥t’ below on respondent's appeal with respect to the order for festitution, Petitioner filed “a eross- appeal from that part of the trial court's pudgment, which ggve statutory damages for less than the amount of the establigted overcharges. The ruling of the court below on the eros appeal, 182 PF. 2d 330, is not challenged here. \ \ ne “er 7% The esurt of appeals reversed the perma of . the ial court to tlie extent that it directed respond- ents to make restitution 6f° overcharges,. and re-, mnanded the cause with directions. to dismiss. the: .suit in so far as it sought a prohibitory’ injunetion, and restitution of overe eling rentiils, and fora , new trial for any overcharges, together with ak have accrued Within one year of the complaint (R. 28). damages aS mig from the date.of tl\e filiy The court. of appeals rested-its decision on the theory ‘that ‘¥estitution of overceiling rentals is -- merely ancillary or adjunctive to injunctive-r relief . and cannot be ordered in thie~absence of power to ‘grant an injunction. Consequently, it held that sive the Housing Expediter had béen ‘shorn of all power to enforce * * * control-in the-future”’ in Dallas, Texas, by the termination of fent contro] ‘In that.city’the trial court was Avithouf authority: in this case to grant an injunction against future violations of the Act, and “hence: without power te, order restitution of the Megal rentals (CR. 27). Lae REASONS FOR GRANTING THE writ i: The holding of the court below fhat an order. compelling a landlord to make restitution, of over- ceiling rents received by him is. solely. an adjunet to an injunctive dec ree prohibiting. future violations: of the. Housing: and. Rent Act, is in conflict with the reasoning of this Court.in Porter v. Warner ° 7 Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395. In the Warner case. this Court had under consideration Section 205 ( a) ofthe Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, supra, PP. 3-4, the language of which was substantially the same as that contained in Section mete) of ‘the Housing and Rent Act of 1927, sepra, p. 3 , This Court there held that-an order issued under Section 205(a) of the Price Control Act for the recovery of illegal rénts might be’ considered as a proper ‘‘other order”’ under, that section ‘‘on either of two. * Py ° . | ee : al theories,”’ (1) it might be ‘‘considered as ar equit- (2) it might be‘ ‘considered as an order vi Al Sow and hecessary to enforce compliance with the Act’ {p. 400}. Thus, under the second of these’ theories. a restitution order can issue regardless of whether a prohibitery injunction can be issued in the par- ticular case. This Court’s reference to the éecond theory would have been meaningless if restitution < had been deeme@ permissible only when ane ‘illa ry to injunctive relief. + wo, é able adjunct to an injunction decree” ( p. 399), or’ ‘In the W arner case this Cott pointed out the effect of a restitution order, as follows: (p. 400): And it is not. unreasonable for a. court to con- clude that stich a restitution ordersis ¢ appropi> -ate and necessary to enforce compliance with the Act ‘and -to give effect to its’ purposes. ..- Future compliance. may be more de finitely as- sured if one is compelled to restore one’s illegal ? yee. " - AY Ms a” e 8 gains; and the statutory policy of preventing inflation is. plainly advanced if prices oF rents Which have been collected in the past are re- duced to their legal. maximums, In enacting the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, Congress used substantially the same language in Section 206(D) thereof, supira, p. 3, as it had-used in Section 205(a) of the Price Control Act, supra, pp. 3-4. In the circumstances, Section 206(b) of the Rent Act should receive the same construction as that placed by this Court on Section 205(a) of the Price Cont rol Act. | 4 . 2. The decision of the: court eee is in conflict - with the decisions of four other courts of appeal construing Section 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 in light of this-Court’s holding in the Warner ease. Ebeling v. Woods, 175 F, 2d 242 (C. A. 8) °: Woods v. Wolfe, 122 -F. 2d 516 ((, Az)" Woods vy. Wayne, 177 FB. 2a 559 (C0. A *“The opinion in Porter v. Warner Holding Ph 328 US. 395, 399-403, 66-8, Ct. 1086, 1089-1091, 96.1. Ed. 1332, how- ever, Is explicit, we think, that an equitahle sl for restitu- tlon ef overcharges may be made under the Prive Controt Act, either as an adjunct to a prohibitory injunction or in depend- ently and without regard to whether such an injunction is being sought or has been denied.” "(Ebeling v. Woods, 175 F.- ” 242, 244.) “Congress made available to the Expediter iiieciank See- ‘tion 2051a) an armory.of the weapons of equity. One of these weapons is the injunctive precess; another is restitution, Neither one is dependent upon the ether. Both may be availed of, or one or the other successfully employed.” (Woods . m olf. 182 F. 2d hea “aiceatsi ) ‘ 9 F 4); Woods v. Richman, 174 F. 24 614 (C. A./9),7 The decision of-the court be ow is likewise i con: flict with its own prior decision in Creedon y. Ran- dol ph, 165 F, 24 918.". Each of the cases hol authority of this C ourt’s decision in the/ Warner ‘ase, that an order of restitution is auth rized un- der Section 205(a) ofthe Emergeney trol Act of 1942 without regard td w hether a pro- hibitory injunction, is sought or denied. See: Boutles v. Skaggs, 151 F. 2d 817 (C.A. 6), which reached the same conclusion prior to the Warner decision, And in all of these eages, except the Skaggs and Randolph cases, supra, restitution was awarded after the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 had terminated so that injunctive relief | was no longer possible. Authority to enforce rights and |Hiabilities after the termination of the Price Control Act was vested in the courts by. the saving provision in Neetion 1(b) of that Act (50 UL S.C. App. 9010b)). See ess . “The remedy afforded by § 2050+ bs i melelition te others set up in the Act; and an order of restitution paw be eranter with or without a prohibiting imjumetiom” (Moods © Breck. man, 174 F. 2d G14, 616) *See also Jackson v. Woods, } P Di Ba cewieleeld be the ; court below on the same day it dated the ease of har. wherein restnution was granted be the trae! eomrt “sed weleld on appeal. The housing aecommerlation iat the Jeet eon ease were likewise situated in Dallas, Teswe. poet ae were the accommodations in the instant ease The eoomphenet m= the Jackson case was filed on February 1. 1068 prior te th time deconthol took effeet in Dallas, whieh was on June 23 1949. In the\ease at-bar, the complaint was filed on June 29, 1949, a few daXs after the decontrol had gone inte effeet. ,on the *rice Con- / ‘o 10 Fleming v. Mohawk Co., 331 U.S. 111, 119; W ‘oods v. Hills, 384 U.S, 210. A similar saving provision is contained in Section 204(f) of the Housing and- Rent Act of 1947 (50 U.S. C. App. (Supp. IIT) 1894 (f)) ), Which maintains in full force ¢ and “fect afteratermination of the Ac ‘t, all‘of its } provisions and all orders issued thereunder for the purpose of sustaining suits with respect to rights and liabili- ties accruing prior to the termination. This provi- | = is plainly broad enough to cover’ liabilities “which arose prioe-to decontro]l even where suit is ak teen until after the decontrol takes place. . The deciSion of of the, court below, unless re- | sede will govern the outcome of a large number of restitution cases, now pending iff district courts within the Fifth Circuit, brought pursuant.to See- tion 206(b) of the Housing and Rent Act in con- nection with y iolations which occurred in ar eas that are now decontrotled. i urthermore action to ace -complish the decontrol of rental housing. accommo- -_ dations has been taken or is being ¢ ontemplated hy imany cities of consequence. In addition, numerous other areas have been decontrolled by yirtue of the | authority contained in Section 204(¢) and (b) of ‘the Act (50 U.S.C. App. (Supp. TIL) 1894 (e) and (e)): Presumably the ruling of the court below would control in the Fifth Circuit regardless of the -manner in which the decontrol of a defense-rental ? o ~~ . a . . area has been brought about.” In the cireum- stances, there. is an urgent publie need to have the decision of the court below brought into harmony with the holding of this Court in the Warner case, eand to have resolved: the conflict betweer that de- cision and the decisions of the other four courts of appeal cited above. , - CONCLUSION ' , For the reasons stated, the petition for certiorati ~ should be granted, - Es iey *-Respectfully submitted, Se Puinire B. Periwan, | eee _ Selisitor General. Ep Dupree, Caren uae atk General Counsel, — ie Office of the Housin g Ex diter. ~ Oct TOBER, 1950. Nohdigr as Oe sr Pears nO re ee *Decontrol actions for the natien effextive te and including September 8, 1950, undertaken bythe various: methods pro- vided by the Act are set forth below: only 2 Cumulative April 1, 1949, to. Estimated 1940 September 8, 1950. Actions Units’ = Population - Expediter Initiative 554 1,351,901 15,822,865 Local Option’ 330 1,317,746. 6.650411 Local Option (C ounty) 1 - 3,188 + 47.565 State, Option 10 3,489,358 19.876.818 - Board Recommendation 6 84,419 © 559,842 Total ce 901 6,246,622 42,957, 501 ° : . * os ° * U § GOVERNMLNT PRINTING OFFICE. +980 907673 ¢.28S --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0019%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.