Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Lockerty Et Al. v. Phillips, United States Attorney

• 1942 • 319 U.S. 182 • Stone Court
In Lockerty v. Phillips (1942), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, which limited judicial review for individuals challenging price controls set by the federal government during World War II. The plaintiffs were fur dealers who argued that this limitation violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law, as well as their Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. However,...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Stone Court
Term: 1942
Docket: 934
319 U.S. 182
63 S. Ct. 1019
87 L. Ed. 1339
1943 U.S. LEXIS 680
Argued: May 03, 1943

Lockerty Et Al. v. Phillips, United States Attorney

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Lockerty v. Phillips (1942), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, which limited judicial review for individuals challenging price controls set by the federal government during World War II. The plaintiffs were fur dealers who argued that this limitation violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law, as well as their Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. However, Justice Felix Frankfurter delivered an unanimous decision stating that Congress had broad authority to regulate wartime economy and could limit judicial review accordingly without violating constitutional rights. This case affirmed Congress's power to control economic activity during times of national emergency.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Lockerty v. Phillips, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law limiting judicial review of price control orders was unconstitutional. He believed that this law violated the separation of powers by infringing on the judiciary's role in reviewing executive actions and interpreting laws. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such restrictions were allowed to stand, arguing that they could lead to unchecked governmental authority over individuals' lives and property without adequate legal recourse or protection. In his view, even during times of war or national emergency when certain liberties might be curtailed for public safety reasons, it is crucial to maintain checks and balances among different branches of government as safeguards against tyranny.

Opinion written by Justice HFStone
Decided: May 10, 1943
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms