BURTON, J., dissenting. 328 U.S. state law should be set aside. It represents the tested public policy of Virginia regularly enacted, long maintained and currently observed. The officially declared state interests, even when affecting interstate commerce, should not be laid aside summarily by this Court in the absence of congressional action. It is only Congress that can supply affirmative national uniformity of action. In Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761, 768– 769, 770, this Court speaking through the late Chief Justice said: "In the application of these principles some enactments may be found to be plainly within and others plainly without state power. But between these extremes lies the infinite variety of cases, in which regulation of local matters may also operate as a regulation of commerce, in which reconciliation of the conflicting claims of state and national power is to be attained only by some appraisal and accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved.3 "But in general Congress has left it to the courts to formulate the rules thus interpreting the commerce clause in its application, doubtless because it has appreciated the destructive consequences to the commerce of the nation if their [i. e. the courts'] protection were withdrawn, . .. and has been aware that in their application state laws will not be invalidated without the support of relevant factual material which will 'afford a sure basis' for an informed judgment.* Meanwhile, Congress has accommodated its legislation, as have the states, to these rules as an established feature of our constitutional system. There has thus been left to the states wide scope for 3 See Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341, 362; Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U. S. 34, 44. 373 BURTON, J., dissenting. the regulation of matters of local state concern, even though it in some measure affects the commerce, provided it does not materially restrict the free flow of commerce across state lines, or interfere with it in matters with respect to which uniformity of regulation is of predominant national concern." (Italics supplied.) The above-quoted requirement of a factual establishment of "a sure basis" for an informed judgment by this Court calls for a firm and demonstrable basis of action on the part of this Court. In the record of this case there are no findings of fact that demonstrate adequately the excessiveness of the burden, if any, which the Virginia statute has imposed upon interstate commerce, during the many years since its enactment, in comparison with the resulting effect in Virginia of the invalidation of this statute. The Court relies largely upon the recital of a nation-wide diversity among state statutes on this subject without a demonstration of the factual situation in those states, and especially in Virginia. The Court therefore is not able in this case to make that necessary "appraisal and accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved" which should be the foundation for passing upon the validity of a state statute of long standing and of important local significance in the exercise of the state police power. 5 Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485, does not require the conclusion reached by the Court in this case. The Louisiana statute in the DeCuir case could have been invalidated, at that time and place, as an undue burden on interstate commerce under the rules clearly stated by Chief Justice Stone in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, supra, and as applied in this dissenting opinion. If the DeCuir case is followed without weighing the surrounding facts, it would invalidate today statutes in New England states prohibiting racial separation in seating arrangements on carriers, which would not be invalidated under the doctrine stated in the Arizona case. BURTON, J., dissenting. 328 U.S. The Court makes its own further assumption that the question of racial separation of interstate passengers in motor vehicle carriers requires national uniformity of treatment rather than diversity of treatment at this time. The inaction of Congress is an important indication that, in the opinion of Congress, this issue is better met without nationally uniform affirmative regulation than with it. Legislation raising the issue long has been, and is now, pending before Congress but has not reached the floor of either House. The fact that 18 states have prohibited in some degree racial separation in public carriers is important progress in the direction of uniformity. The fact, however, that 10 contiguous states in some degree require, by state law, some racial separation of passengers on motor carriers indicates a different appraisal by them of the needs and conditions in those areas than in others. The remaining 20 states have not gone equally far in either direction. This recital of existing legislative diversity is evidence against the validity of the assumption by this Court that there exists today a requirement of a single uniform national rule on the subject. It is a fundamental concept of our Constitution that where conditions are diverse the solution of problems arising out of them may well come through the application of diversified treatment matching the diversified needs as determined by our local governments. Uniformity of treatment is appropriate where a substantial uniformity of conditions exists. * See H. R. 8821, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 83 Cong. Rec. 74; H. R. 182, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 84 Cong. Rec. 27; H. R. 112, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 87 Cong. Rec. 13. Statement of the Case. PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, v. WARNER HOLDING CO. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 793. Argued May 2, 3, 1946.-Decided June 3, 1946. 1. In an enforcement proceeding under § 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, a Federal District Court has power to order restitution of rents collected by a landlord in excess of maximums established by regulations issued under the Act. Pp. 398399. 2. Under the provision of § 205 (a) authorizing the District Court, upon a proper showing, to grant "a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order," an order for the recovery and restitution of illegal rents may be considered a proper "other order" either (1) as an equitable adjunct to an injunction decree, or (2) as an order appropriate and necessary to enforce compliance with the Act. Pp. 399, 400. 3. The legislative background of § 205 (a) supports the conclusion that the traditional equity powers of a court remain unimpaired in a proceeding under that section so that an order of restitution may be made. P. 400. 4. The provision of § 205 (e) authorizing an aggrieved tenant, and in certain circumstances the Price Administrator, to sue for damages does not conflict, except as to an award of damages, with the jurisdiction of equity courts under § 205 (a) to issue whatever "other order" may be necessary to vindicate the public interest, to compel compliance with the Act, and to prevent and undo inflationary tendencies. Pp. 401-402. 5. In considering a restitution order where there are conflicting claims between tenants and landlord as to the amounts due, the District Court has inherent power to bring in all interested parties and settle the controversies or to retain the case until the matters are otherwise litigated. P. 403. 151 F.2d 529, reversed. The Price Administrator brought suit under § 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 to enjoin respondent from violating the Act and to require respond ent to make restitution of rents collected in excess of maximums established by regulations issued under the Act. The District Court enjoined respondent from violating the Act but denied a restitution order. 60 F. Supp. 513. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 151 F. 2d 529. This Court granted certiorari. 327 U. S. 773. Reversed, p. 403. Milton Klein argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McGrath, Ralph F. Fuchs and David London. G. W. Townsend argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was F. H. Fryberger. MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we are concerned with the power of a federal court, in an enforcement proceeding under § 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942,1 to order restitution of rents collected by a landlord in excess of the permissible maximums. The Warner Holding Company, the respondent, owns eight apartment houses in Minneapolis, Minnesota, con-. taining approximately 280 dwelling units. Between November 1, 1942, and June 29, 1943, it demanded and received rents in excess of those permitted by the applicable maximum rent regulations issued under the Act. The Administrator of the Office of Price Administration then brought this action in the District Court to restrain the respondent from continuing to exceed the rent ceilings. The complaint was later amended to seek, in addition, a decree requiring the respondent "to tender to such persons as are entitled thereto a refund of all amounts collected 156 Stat. 23, 33; 50 U. S. C. App. § 925 (a). |