William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States v. Walter Schilling

D.C. Circuit

William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States v. Walter Schilling

268 F.2d 584, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 8, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3838

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 1959

Docket14723

StatusPublished

This text of 268 F.2d 584 (William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States v. Walter Schilling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States v. Walter Schilling, 268 F.2d 584, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 8, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3838 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an alien property case. Plaintiff-appellee, a German national, applied to the Attorney General for relief under Section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1 claiming to be a persecuted person within the scope of the first proviso of Section 32(a) (2) (D). 2 The Attorney General, after hearing, found that plaintiff was not within the class intended to be benefited by that proviso, and refused to return plaintiff’s vested property. Plaintiff then brought suit in the District Court, praying an adjudication of eligibility under the proviso. The Government moved to dismiss, and the District Court denied the motion. An interlocutory appeal was allowed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) (Supp. 1958).

*586 Though this is not a direct attempt to compel the return of vested alien property, it is an effort to obtain judicial determination of a preliminary issue of a sort committed by Congress to agency discretion. As such, it is forbidden by Section 7(c) of the Act, and reliance cannot be placed on other legislation having no specific application to alien property, such as the Declaratory Judgment Act 3 and the Administrative Procedure Act. 4 See McGrath v. Zander, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 177 F.2d 649; Legerlotz v. Rogers, 1959, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 457, and cases there cited. The complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Remanded.

1

. Added by 60 Stat. 50 (1948), as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 32.

2

. “ * * * Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision return may be made to an individual who, as a consequence of any law, decree, or regulation of the nation of which he was then a citizen or subject, discriminating against political, racial, or religious groups, has at no time between December 7, 1941, and the time when such law, decree, or regulation was abrogated, enjoyed full rights of citizenship under the law of such nation * *

3

. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 (Supp. 1958).

4

. 60 Stat. 237 (1946), as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1009.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an alien property case. Plaintiff-appellee, a German national, applied to the Attorney General for relief under Section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1 claiming to be a persecuted person within the scope of the first proviso of Section 32(a) (2) (D). 2 The Attorney General, after hearing, found that plaintiff was not within the class intended to be benefited by that proviso, and refused to return plaintiff’s vested property. Plaintiff then brought suit in the District Court, praying an adjudication of eligibility under the proviso. The Government moved to dismiss, and the District Court denied the motion. An interlocutory appeal was allowed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) (Supp. 1958).

*586 Though this is not a direct attempt to compel the return of vested alien property, it is an effort to obtain judicial determination of a preliminary issue of a sort committed by Congress to agency discretion. As such, it is forbidden by Section 7(c) of the Act, and reliance cannot be placed on other legislation having no specific application to alien property, such as the Declaratory Judgment Act 3 and the Administrative Procedure Act. 4 See McGrath v. Zander, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 177 F.2d 649; Legerlotz v. Rogers, 1959, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 457, and cases there cited. The complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Remanded.

1

. Added by 60 Stat. 50 (1948), as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 32.

2

. “ * * * Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision return may be made to an individual who, as a consequence of any law, decree, or regulation of the nation of which he was then a citizen or subject, discriminating against political, racial, or religious groups, has at no time between December 7, 1941, and the time when such law, decree, or regulation was abrogated, enjoyed full rights of citizenship under the law of such nation * *

3

. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 (Supp. 1958).

4

. 60 Stat. 237 (1946), as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1009.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 F.2d 584, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 8, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-p-rogers-attorney-general-of-the-united-states-v-walter-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack