Thomas Paper Stock Company v. Porter

by Felix Frankfurter

United States Supreme Court

328 U.S. 50

Thomas Paper Stock Company  v.  Porter

 Argued: Feb. 25, 26, 1946. --- Decided: April 22, 1946

Clauses 3 and 4 of section 2(j) of Emergency Price Control Act provide three alternative situations in any one of which the Price Administrator is authorized to employ specifications or standards in connection with price controls. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 2(j), as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 902(j).

Under Taft Amendment to Emergency Price Control Act, standardization is permitted even though the Price Administrator defines a standard which has not previously been used by the Industry or required by other governmental agency. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 2(j), as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 902(j).

The Taft Amendment to Emergency Price Control Act precludes standardized commodity prices until such time as the Price Administrator determines that no other method of price control is practicable. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 2(j), as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 902(j).

The Taft Amendment to Emergency Price Control Act authorizing Price Administrator to standardize a commodity after determining that no practicable alternative exists for securing effective price control of such commodity contains no implied limitation that all outstanding standardizing regulations are to be deemed continuingly valid. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 2(j), as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 902(j).

Under Taft Amendment to Emergency Price Control Act authorizing Price Administrator to standardize a commodity after determining that no practicable alternative exists for securing effective price control of such commodity, the Price Administrator does not have a reasonable time to make such determination during which period outstanding standardizing regulations will continue in force. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 2(j), as amended, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 902(j).

In No. 67: Mr. Jack H. Oppenheim, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners Thomas Paper Stock Co.

Mr. Richard H. Field, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

In No. 578:

Mr. Jack H. Oppenheim, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

Mr. Jacob D. Hyman, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Notes