Bowles v. Willingham

321 U.S. 503, 64 S. Ct. 641, 88 L. Ed. 892, 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1202, 28 Ohio Op. 180

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: March 27, 1944
• Docket: 464
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellee, Mrs. Willingham of Macon, Georgia, sued in a Georgia court to restrain the issuance of certain rent orders under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. II) § 901) on the ground that the orders and the statutory provisions on which they rested were unconstitutional. The state court issued, ex parte, a temporary injunction and a show cause order. Thereupon appellant, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, brought this suit in the federal District Court pursuant to § 205 (a) of the Act and § 24 (1) of the Judicial Code to restrain Mrs. Willing-ham from further prosecution of the state proceedings and from violation of the Act, and to restrain appellee Hicks, Bibb County sheriff, from executing or attempting to execute any orders in the state proceedings. The District Court in reliance on its earlier ruling in Payne v. Griffin, 51 F. Supp. 588, dismissed the Administrator’s suit on bill and answer, holding that the orders in question and the provisions of the Act on which they rested were unconstitutional. The case is here on direct appeal. 50 Stat. 752, 28 U. S. C. § 349 (a).

Sec. 2 (b) of the Act provides in part that, “Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator such action is necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of .this Act, he shall issue a declaration setting forth the necessity for, and recommendations with reference to, the stabilization or reduction of rents for any defense-area housing accommodations within a particular defense-rental area.” Pursuant to that authority the Administrator on April 28, 1942, issued a declaration designating twenty-eight areas in various parts of the country, including Macon, Georgia, as defense-rental areas. 7 Fed. Reg. 3193. That declaration stated that defense activities had resulted in increased housing rents in those areas¹ and that it was necessary and proper in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act to stabilize and reduce such rents. It also contained a recommendation pursuant to § 2 (b) that the maximum rent for housing accommodations rented on April 1, 1941, should be the rental for such accommodations on that date;² and that in case of accommodations not rented on April 1, 1941, or constructed thereafter provisions for the determination, adjustment, and modification of maximum rents should be made, such rents to be in principle no greater than the generally prevailing rents in the particular area on April 1,1941. The declaration also stated in accordance with the provisions of § 2 (b)³ that if within sixty days after April 28, 1942, such rents within the areas in question had not been stabilized or reduced by state or local regulation or otherwise in accordance with the Administrator’s recommendation, the Administrator might fix the maximum rents.

On June 30, 1942, the Administrator issued Maximum Rent Regulation No. 26, effective July 1, 1942, establishing the maximum legal rents for housing in these defense areas, including Macon, Georgia. 7 Fed. Reg. 4905.' It recited that the rentals had not been reduced or stabilized since the declaration of April 28, 1942, and that defense activities had resulted in increases in the rentals on or about April 1,1941, but not prior to that date. The maximum rentals fixed for housing accommodations rented on April 1, 1941 were the rents obtained on that date. § 1388.1704 (a). As respects housing accommodations not rented on April 1, 1941, but rented for the first time between that date and the effective date of the regulation, July 1, 1942—the situation involved in this case—it was provided that the maximum rent should be the first rent charged after April 1, 1941. § 1388.1704 (c). But in that case it was provided that the Rent Director (designated by § 1388.1713) might order a decrease on his own initiative on the ground, among others, that the rent was higher than that generally prevailing in the area for comparable housing accommodations on April 1, 1941. § 1388.1704 (c), §1388.1705 (c) (1). By Procedural Regulation No. 3, as amended (8 Fed. Reg. 526, 1798, 3534, 5481, 14811) issued pursuant to § 201 (d) and § 203 (a) of the Act4 provision was made that when the Rent Director proposed to take such action he should serve a notice upon the landlord involved, stating the proposed action and the grounds therefor. § 1300.207. Within 60 days of the final action of the Rent Director the landlord might file an application for review by the regional administrator for the region in which the defense-rental area office was located and then file a protest with the Administrator for review of the action of the regional office (§ 1300.209, § 1300.210); or he might proceed by protest immediately. § 1300.209, § 1300.215. As we develop more fully hereafter, the Act provides in § 203 (a) for the filing of protests with the Administrator. The machinery for a hearing on a protest and a determination of the issue by the Administrator (§ 1300.215-§ 1300.240) was designed to provide the basis of judicial review by the Emergency Court of Appeals as authorized by § 204 (a) of the Act.

In June, 1943, the Rent Director gave written notice to Mrs. Willingham that he proposed to decrease the maximum rents for three apartments owned by her, and which had not been rented on April 1,1941, but were first rented in the summer of 1941, on the ground that the first rents for these apartments received after April 1, 1941, were in excess of those generally prevailing in the area for comparable accommodations on April 1, 1941. Mrs. Willing-ham filed objections to that proposed action together with supporting affidavits. The Rent Director thereupon advised her that he would proceed to issue an order reducing the rents. Before that was done she filed her bill in the Georgia court. The present suit followed shortly, as we have said.

I. We are met at the outset with the question whether the District Court could in any event give the relief which the Administrator seeks in view of § 265 of the Judicial Code (36 Stat. 1162, 28 U. S. C. § 379) which provides that “The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.” We recently had occasion to consider the history of § 265 and the exceptions which have been engrafted on it. Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118. In that case we listed the few Acts of Congress passed since its first enactment in 1793 which operate as implied legislative amendments to it. 314 U. S. pp. 132-134. There should now be added to that list the exception created by the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. By § 205 (a) the Administrator is given authority to seek injunctive relief in the appropriate court (including the federal district courts) against acts or practices in violation of § 4, e. g., the receipt of rent in violation of any regulation or order under § 2. Moreover, by § 204 (d) of the Act one who seeks to restrain or set aside any order of the Administrator or any provision of the Act is confined to the judicial review granted to the Emergency Court of Appeals, which was created by § 204 (c) and to this Court.⁵ As

we recently held in Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U. S. 182, 186, 187, Congress confined jurisdiction to grant equitable relief to that narrow channel and withheld such jurisdiction from every other federal and state court. Congress thus preempted jurisdiction in favor of the Emergency Court to the exclusion of state courts.⁶ The rule expressed in § 265 which is designed to avoid collisions between state and federal authorities (Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., supra) thus does not come into play. The powers of the District Court under § 205 (a) of the Act and § 24 (1) of the Judicial Code are ample authority for that court to protect the exclusive federal jurisdiction which Congress created.

The suggestion is made that Congress could not constitutionally withhold from the courts of the States jurisdiction to entertain suits attacking the Act on constitutional grounds. But we have here a controversy which arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is therefore within the judicial power of the United States as defined in Art. Ill, § 2 of the Constitution. Hence Congress could determine whether the federal courts which it established should have exclusive jurisdiction of such cases or whether they should exercise that jurisdiction concurrently with the courts of the States. Plaquemines Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U. S. 511, 517; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 428-430. And see Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 468-469. Under the present Act all jurisdiction has not been withheld from state courts, since they have concurrent jurisdiction over all civil enforcement suits brought by the Administrator. § 205 (c). But the authority of.Congress to withhold all jurisdiction from the state courts obviously includes the power to restrict the occasions when that jurisdiction may be invoked.

II. The question of the constitutionality of the rent control provisions of the Act⁷ raises issues related to those considered in Yakus v. United States, ante, p. 414.

When it came to rents Congress pursued the policy it adopted respecting commodity prices. It established standards for administrative action and left with the Administrator the decision when the rent controls of the Act should be invoked. He is empowered to fix maximum rents, for housing accommodations in any defense-rental area,⁸ whenever in his judgment that action is necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act. A defense-rental area is any area “designated by the Administrator as an area where defense activities have re-suited or threaten to result in an increase in the rents for housing accommodations inconsistent with the purposes” of the Act. § 302 (d). The controls adopted by Congress were thought necessary “in the interest of the national defense and security” and for the “effective prosecution of the present war.” § 1 (a). They have as their aim the effective protection of our price structures against the forces of disorganization and the pressures created by war and its attendant activities.⁹ § 1 (a); S. Rep. No. 931, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1-5. Thus the policy of the Act is clear. The maximum rents fixed by the Administrator are those which “in his judgment” will be “generally fair and equitable and will effectuate the purposes of this Act.” § 2 (b). But Congress did not leave the Administrator with that general standard; it supplied criteria for its application by stating that so far as practicable the Administrator in establishing any maximum rent should ascertain and give consideration to the rents prevailing for the accommodations, or comparable ones, on April 1, 1941. The Administrator, however, may choose an earlier or later date if defense activities have caused increased rents prior or subsequent to April 1, 1941. But in no event may the Administrator select a date earlier than April 1, 1940. And in determining a maximum rent “he shall make adjustments for such relevant factors as he may determine and deem to be of general applicability in respect of such accommodations, including increases or decreases in property taxes and other costs.” § 2 (b). And Congress has provided that the Administrator “may provide for such adjustments and reasonable exceptions” as in his judgment are “necessary or proper in order to effectuate the.purposes of this Act.” § 2 (c).

The considerations which support the delegation of authority under this Act over commodity prices (Yakus v. United States) are equally applicable here. The power to legislate which the Constitution says “shall be vested” in Congress (Art. I, § 1) has not been granted to the Administrator. Congress in § 1 (a) of the Act has made clear its policy of waging war on inflation. In § 2 (b) it has defined the circumstances when its announced policy is to be declared operative and the method by which it is to be effectuated. Those steps constitute the performance of the legislative function in the constitutional sense. Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U. S. 126, 144.

There is no grant of unbridled administrative discretion as appellee argues. Congress has not told the Administrator to fix rents whenever and wherever he might like and at whatever levels he pleases. Congress has directed that maximum rents be fixed in those areas where defense activities have resulted or threaten to result in increased rentals inconsistent with the purpose of the Act. And it has supplied the standard and the base period to guide the Administrator in determining what the maximum rentals should be in a given area. The criteria to guide the Administrator are certainly not more vague than the standards governing the determination by the Secretary of Agriculture in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 U. S. 533, 576-577, of marketing areas and minimum prices for milk. The question of how far Congress should go in filling in the details of the standards which its administrative agency is to apply raises large issues of policy. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 398. We recently stated in connection with this problem of delegation, “The Constitution, viewed as a continuously operative charter of government, is not to be interpreted as demanding the impossible or the impracticable.” Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, supra, p. 145. In terms of hard-headed practicalities Congress frequently could not'perform its functions if it were required to make an appraisal of the myriad of facts applicable to varying situations, area by area throughout the land, and then to determine in each case what should be done. Congress does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority. In our complex economy that indeed is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. Whether a particular grant of authority to an officer or agency is wise or unwise, raises questions which are none of our concern. Our inquiry ends with the constitutional issue. Congress here has specified the basic conclusions of fact upon the ascertainment of which by the Administrator its statutory command is to become effective. But that is not all. The Administrator on the denial of protests must inform the protestant of the “grounds upon which” the decision is based and of any “economic data and other facts of which the Administrator has taken official notice.” § 203 (a). These materials and the grounds for decision which they furnished are included in the transcript on which judicial review is based. §204 (a). We fail to see how more could be required (Taylor v. Brown, 137 F. 2d 654, 658-659) unless we were to say that Congress rather than the Administrator should determine the exact rentals which Mrs. Willingham might exact.

As we have pointed out and as more fully developed in Yakus v. United States, supra, § 203 (a) of the Act provides for the filing of a protest with the Administrator against any regulation or order under § 2. Moreover, any person “aggrieved” may secure judicial review of the action of the Administrator in the Emergency Court of Appeals. § 204 (a). And that review is on a transcript which includes “a statement setting forth, so far as practicable, the economic data and other facts of which the Administrator has taken official notice.” § 204 (a). Here, as in the Yakus case, the standards prescribed by the Act are adequate for the judicial review which has been accorded. The fact that there is a zone for the exercise of discretion by the Administrator is no more fatal here than in other situations where Congress has prescribed the general standard and has left to an administrative agency the determination of the precise situations to which the provisions of the Act will be applied and the weight to be accorded various statutory criteria on given facts. Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, supra; Yakus v. United States, supra.

Thus so far as delegation of authority is concerned, the rent control provisions of the Act, like the price control provisions (Yakus v. United States, supra), meet the requirements which this Court has previously held to be adequate for peacetime legislation.

III. It is said, however, that § 2 (b) of the Act is unconstitutional because it requires the Administrator to fix maximum rents which are “generally fair and equitable.” The argument is that a rental which is “generally fair and equitable” may be most unfair and inequitable as applied to a particular landlord and that a statute which does not provide for a fair rental to each landlord is unconstitutional. During the first World War the statute for the control of rents in the District of Columbia provided machinery for securing to a landlord a reasonable rental. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 157. And see Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U. S. 242. And under other price-fixing statutes such as the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 821, 15 U. S. C. § 717) Congress has provided for the fixing of rates which are just and reasonable in their application to particular persons or companies. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591. Congress departed from that pattern when it came to the present Act. It has been pointed out that any attempt to fix rents, landlord by landlord, as in the fashion of utility rates, would have been quite impossible. Wilson v. Brown, 137 F. 2d 348, 352-354. Such considerations of feasibility and practicality are certainly germane to the constitutional issue. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 299; Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, supra, p. 145. Moreover, there would be no constitutional objection if Congress as a war emergency measure had itself fixed the maximum rents in these areas. We are not dealing here with a situation which involves a “taking” of property. Wilson v. Brown, supra. By § 4 (d) of the Act it is provided that “nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any person to sell any commodity or to offer any accommodations for rent.” There is no requirement that the apartments in question be used for purposes which bring them under the Act. Of course, price control, the same as other forms of regulation, may reduce the value of the property regulated. But, as we have pointed out in the Hope Natural Gas Co. case (320 U. S. p. 601), that does not mean that the regulation is unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court, stated in Block v. Hirsh, supra, p. 155: “The fact that tangible property is also visible tends to give a rigidity to our conception of our rights in it that' we do not attach to others less concretely clothed. But the notion that the former are exempt from the legislative modification required from time to time in civilized life is contradicted not only by the doctrine of eminent domain, under which what is taken is paid for, but by that of the police power in its proper sense, under which property rights may be cut down, and to that extent taken, without pay.” A member of the class which is regulated may suffer economic losses not shared by others. His property may lose utility and depreciate in value as a consequence of regulation. But that has never been a barrier to the exercise of the police power. L’Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 587, 598; Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91; Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297; Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 248 U. S. 498; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 157; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379. And the restraints imposed on the national government in this regard by the Fifth Amendment are no greater than those imposed on the States by the Fourteenth. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., supra; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100.

It is implicit in cases such as Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, which involved the power of New York to fix the minimum and maximum prices of milk, and Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, supra, which involved the power of the Bituminous Coal Commission to fix minimum and maximum prices of bituminous coal, that high cost operators may be more seriously affected by price control than others. But it has never been thought that price-fixing, otherwise valid, was improper because it was on a class rather than an individual basis. Indeed, the decision in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, the pioneer case in this Court, involved a legislative schedule of maximum prices for a defined class of warehouses and was sustained on that basis. We need not determine what constitutional limits there are to price-fixing legislation. Congress was dealing here with conditions created by activites resulting from a great war effort. Yakus v. United States, supra. A nation which can demand the lives of its men and women in the waging of that war is under no constitutional necessity of providing a system of price control on the domestic front which will assure each landlord a “fair return” on his property.

IV. It is finally suggested that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because it makes no provision for a hearing to landlords before the order or regulation fixing rents becomes effective. Obviously, Congress would have been under no necessity to give notice and provide a hearing before it acted, had it decided to fix rents on a national basis the same as it did for the District of Columbia. See 55 Stat. 788. We agree with the Emergency Court of Appeals (Avant v. Bowles, 139 F. 2d 702) that Congress need not make that requirement when it delegates the task to an administrative agency. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board, 239 U. S. 441, a suit was brought by a taxpayer and landowner to enjoin a Colorado Board from putting in effect an order which increased the valuation of all taxable property in Denver 40 per cent. Such action, it was alleged, violated the Fourteenth Amendment as the plaintiff was given no opportunity to be heard. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court, stated, p. 445: “Where a rule of conduct applies to more than a few people it is impracticable that every one should have a direct voice in its adoption. The Constitution does not require all public acts to be done in town meeting or an assembly of the whole. General statutes within the state power are passed that affect the person or property of individuals, sometimes to the point of ruin, without giving them a chance to be heard. Their rights are protected in the only way that they can be in a complex society, by their power, immediate or remote, over those who make the rule.” We need not go so far in the present case. Here Congress has provided for judicial review of the Administrator’s action. To be sure, that review comes after the order has been promulgated; and no provision for a stay is made. But as we have held in Yakus v. United States, supra, that review satisfies the requirements of due process. As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis for a unanimous Court in Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 596-597: “Where only property rights are involved, mere postponement of the judicial enquiry is not a denial of due process, if the opportunity given for the ultimate judicial determination of the liability is adequate. Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586, 593; Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U. S. 611, 631. Delay in the judicial determination of property rights is not uncommon where it is essential that governmental needs be immediately satisfied.”

Language in the cases that due process requires a hearing before the administrative order becomes effective (Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1, 19-20; Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, supra, pp. 152-153) is to be explained on two grounds. In the first place, the statutes there involved required that procedure.

Secondly, as we have held in Yakus v. United States, supra, Congress was dealing here with the exigencies of wartime conditions and the insistent demands of inflation control. Cf. Porter v. Investors Syndicate, 286 U. S. 461, 471. Congress chose not to fix rents in specified areas or on a national scale by legislative fiat. It chose a method designed to meet the needs for rent control as they might arise and to accord some leeway for adjustment within the formula which it prescribed. At the same time, the procedure which Congress adopted was selected with the view of eliminating the necessity for “lengthy and costly trials with concomitant dissipation of the time and energies of all concerned in litigation rather than in the common war effort.” S. Rep. No. 931, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 7. To require hearings for thousands of landlords before any rent control order could be made effective might have defeated the program of price control. Or Congress might well have thought so. National security might not be able to afford the luxuries of litigation and the long delays which preliminary hearings traditionally have entailed.

We fully recognize, as did the Court in Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 426, that “even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.” And see Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., supra, p. 155. But where Congress has provided for judicial review after the regulations or orders have been made effective it has done all that due process under the war emergency requires.

Other objections are raised concerning the regulations or orders fixing the rents. But these may be considered only by the Emergency Court of Appeals on the review provided by § 204. Yakus v. United States, supra.

Reversed.

1 The declaration recited that the designated areas were the location of the armed forces of the United States or of war production industries, that the influx of people had caused an acute shortage of rental housing accommodations, that most of the areas were those in which builders could secure priority ratings on critical materials for residential construction, that new construction had not been sufficient to restore normal rental markets, that surveys showed low vacancy ratios for rental housing accommodations in the areas, that defense activities had resulted in substantial and widespread increases in rents affecting most of these accommodations in the areas, and that official surveys in the areas had shown a marked upward movement in the general level of residential rents.

2 Sec. 2 (b) provides: “Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator such action is necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act, he shall issue a declaration setting forth the necessity for, and recommendations with reference to, the stabilization or reduction of rents for any defense-area housing accommodations within a particular defense-rental area. If within sixty days after the issuance of any such recommendations rents for any such accommodations within such defense-rental area have not in the judgment of the Administrator been stabilized or reduced by State or local regulation, or otherwise, in accordance with the recommendations, the Administrator may by regulation or order establish such maximum rent or maximum rents for such accommodations as in his judgment will be generally fair and equitable and will effectuate the purposes of this Act. So far as practicable, in establishing any maximum rent for any defense-area housing accommodations, the Administrator shall ascertain and give due consideration to the rents prevailing for such accommodations, or comparable accommodations, on or about April 1, 1941 (or if, prior or subsequent to April 1,1941, defense activities shall have resulted or threatened to result in increases in rents for housing accommodations in such area inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, then on or about a date (not earlier than April 1, 1940), which in the judgment of the Administrator, does not reflect such increases), and he shall make adjustments for such relevant factors as he may determine and deem to be of general applicability in respect of such accommodations, including increases or decreases in property taxes and other costs. In designating defense-rental areas, in prescribing regulations and orders establishing maximum rents for such accommodations, and in selecting persons to administer such regulations and orders, the Administrator shall, to such extent as he determines to be practicable, consider any recommendations which may be made by State and local officials concerned with housing or rental conditions in any defense-rental area.”

And § 2 (c) provides: “Any regulation or order under this section may be established in such form and manner, may contain such classifications and differentiations, and may provide for such adjustments and reasonable exceptions, as in the judgment of the Administrator are necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act. Any regulation or order under this section which establishes a maximum price or maximum rent may provide for a maximum price or maximum rent below the price or prices prevailing for the commodity or commodities, or below the rent or rents prevailing for the defense-area housing accommodations, at the time of the issuance of such regulation or order.”

3 See the provisions of § 2 (b) in note 2, supra.

4 Sec. 201 (d) provides: “The Administrator may, from time to time, issue such regulations and orders as he may deem necessary or proper in order to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”

Sec. 203 (a) provides in part: “Within a period of sixty days after the issuance of any regulation or order under section 2, or in the case of a price schedule, within a period of sixty days after the effective date thereof specified in section 206, any person subject to any provision of such regulation, order, or price schedule may, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by tbe Administrator, file a protest specifically setting forth objections to any such provision and affidavits or other written evidence in support of such objections. At any time after the expiration of such sixty days any persons subject to any provision of such regulation, order, or price schedule may file such a protest based solely on grounds arising after the expiration of such sixty days. Statements in support of any such regulation, order, or price schedule may be received and incorporated in the transcript of the proceedings at such times and in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Administrator.”

5 Sec. 204 (d) provides in part: “The Emergency Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court upon review of judgments and orders of the Emergency Court of Appeals, shah have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any regulation or order issued under section 2, of any price schedule effective in accordance with .the provisions of section 206, and of any provision of any such regulation, order, or price schedule. Except as provided in this section, no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to consider the validity of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to stay, restrain, enjoin, or set aside, in whole or in part, any provision of this Act authorizing the issuance of such regulations or orders, or making effective any such price schedule, or any provision of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to restrain or enjoin the enforcement of any such provision.”

It should also be noted that § 204 (c) withholds from the Emergency Court power “to issue any temporary restraining order or interlocutory decree staying or restraining, in whole or in part, the effectiveness of any regulation or order issued under section 2 or any price schedule effective in accordance with the provisions of section 206.”

6 It is true that § 205 (c) gives to state and territorial courts concurrent jurisdiction of all proceedings (except criminal proceedings) under '§ 205 of the Act. But they embrace only enforcement suits brought by the Administrator, hot suits brought to restrain or enjoin enforcement of the Act or orders or regulations thereunder. ' ’

7 Here as in Yakus v. United States, supra, the Administrator concedes that in an enforcement suit the constitutionality of the Act as distinguished from the constitutionality of orders or regulations under the Act is open. As pointed out in the Yakus case, reliance is placed on § 204 (d), supra note 5. And see S. Rep. No. 931, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 24-25.

8 The terms rent, defense-rental area, defense-area housing accommodations, and housing accommodations are defined in § 302 of the Act.

9 Sec. 1 (a) provides in part: “It is hereby declared to be in the interest of the national defense and security and necessary to the effective prosecution of the present war, and the purposes of this Act are, to stabilize prices and to prevent speculative, unwarranted, and abnormal increases in prices and rents; to eliminate and prevent profiteering, hoarding, manipulation, speculation, and other disruptive practices resulting from abnormal market conditions or scarcities caused by or contributing to the national emergency; to assure that defense appropriations are not dissipated by excessive prices; to protect persons with relatively fixed and limited incomes, consumers, wage earners, investors, and persons dependent on life insurance, annuities, and pensions, from undue impairment of their standard of living; to prevent hardships to persons engaged in business, to schools, universities, and other institutions, and to the Federal, State, and local governments, which would result from abnormal increases in prices; to assist in securing adequate production of commodities and facilities; to prevent a post emergency collapse of values; to stabilize agricultural prices in the manner provided in section 3; and to permit voluntary cooperation between the Government and producers, processors, and others to accomplish the aforesaid purposes.”