Document: 363 U.S. 666 80 S.Ct. 1288 4 L.Ed.2d 1478 Walter SCHILLING, Petitioner,v.William P. ROGERS, Attorney General. No. 319. Argued Feb. 29 and March 1, 1960. Decided June 20, Mr. Henry I. Fillman, New York City, for petitioner. Robert Kramer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Section 32(a) Trading with Enemy Act (added by 60 Stat. 50, as amended, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 32(a), U.S.C.A.Appendix, 32(a)) authorizes return in certain circumstances property vested United States during World War II. Under that provision: 2 'The President, or such officer agency he may designate, any interest transferred to Alien Property Custodian (other than acquired prior December 18, 1941), net proceeds thereof, whenever President shall determine * *' 3 following conditions are met: (1) claimant was owner question its vesting, is legal representative successor owner;1 (2) not a member several excluded classes, summarized margin;2 (3) used pursuant 'cloaking' arrangement, whereby an ineligible person concealed;3 (4) there no danger liability respect attaching under renegotiation statutes;4 (5) 'such States.'5 The particular provision involved this case paragraph 2(D) which makes citizens enemy countries who were present those after onset hostilities, first proviso 930), exempts from ineligibility persons victims persecution.6 decision whether District Court had jurisdiction review determination Director, Office Property, sanctioned respondent General, holding inapplicable facts presented petitioner's claim.7 5 Petitioner, national resident Germany at all material times, duly filed General claim 32(a)(2)(D) respondent's predecessors 1942, 1947, 1948, asserting therein some $68,500. He alleged throughout relevant period he, 'anti-Nazi,' claimed have been discriminated-against political group, deprived full rights German citizenship, denied admission practice law. A Hearing Examiner recommended allowance claim, but his recommendation rejected Director on ground petitioner relief proviso.8 refused review. Petitioner then sued administrative determination, claiming it arbitrary illegal. court Government's motion dismiss complaint want jurisdiction. Appeals reversed, holding, line own course decisions, judicial disposition precluded 7(c) Act, 7(c). 106 U.S.App.D.C. 8, 268 F.2d 584. Because importance proper administration we brought here. 361 874, 138, 112. For reasons given hereafter affirm judgment below. 6 Petitioner's principal reliance upon 10 Administrative Procedure provides action '(e)xcept so far statutes preclude law committed discretion.' 243, U.S.C. 1009, U.S.C.A. 1009. We find both limitations applicable provides: 7 sole remedy having money other heretofore be provided terms *.' 40 1021. 8 perceive basis contention limits only remedies available nonenemies 9(a), construing 7(c), passed 1918, being 32, 1946. language section 'all-inclusive,' Becker Steel Co. America v. Cummings, 296 74, 79, 56 15, L.Ed. 54, speaks future well past. See also Central Union Trust Garvan, 254 554, 568, 41 214, 216, 65 403. 9 express recourse courts II contained 9(a). That section, however, enemies allies defined statutes, hence petitioner, national.9 While 9(c) entitles classes 'enemies' enumerated 9(b) similarly sue recover whose authorized 9(b), sections apply I vestings. Feyerabend McGrath, 89 33, 189 694; cf. Markham Cabell, 326 404, 66 193, 90 165. Although broadened categories status eligible II, unlike contains claims. right can fairly implied, assume if requirements would satisfied. 32 legislative history speak strongly against implication. absence respecting 'enemy' claims stands sharp contrast presence s arising out original version what ultimately became did contain comparable 9(c), applicable, national-residents, 'sole remedy' 7(c)—H.R. 4840, 32(b), (c), Hearings before Subcommittee Committee Judiciary, House Representatives H.R. 78th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1—2—but subsequent draft bill, substantially form finally enacted 1946 (60 50), omitted provisions. 3750, Representatives, 79th 1st 1—2. record explanation these omissions, committee hearings 3750 amendments view contemplated status, still less nationals residents countries, should denials 11 Speaking initial hearing. Markham, Custodian, stated: 12 'I sure make clear. Supposing applies property, deem appropriate bill refuse property. Now, will say technical enemy, Frenchman. has compel me bill.' p. 14; see 11, 15. 13 And when few months later, August 1946, various statute considered added came severe criticism because provisions enemies. Senate S. 2378 2039, 57—59, 61, 62—63. affording was, time suggested. Congress, nevertheless, permitted stand without enacting relief,10 later proposed legislation character failed enactment. 2544, 82d Sess.; 34, 83d Sess.11 14 conclusion impels confirmed text Act. connection contrasts care Congress took provide limit aspects See, e.g., §§ 32(d), 32(e), 32(f),12 34(e), 34(f), 34(i). It moment concerned direct relief, relief. point advertent role courts, specific area kind participation indicates purpose participation. Beyond this, permissive drawn (363 page 667, 1290) persuasively indicate their entirely discretionary Executive branch 'without intervention courts.' Work ex rel. Rives, 267 175, 182, 45 252, 254, 69 561. 15 relying McGrath Kristensen, 340 162, 71 224, 95 173, contends even though might entitled adverse merits nonetheless issue eligibility proviso, here involved. Kristensen case, involving suspension deportation 244 Immigration Nationality (66 1254, 1254), bears little resemblance situation Heikkila Barber, 345 229, 233, 73 603, 605, 97 972; Switchmen's North National Mediation Board, 320 297, 301, 64 95, 97, 88 61. structure does permit distinction case. Compare 32(a). Indeed, theory partial reviewability concerned; (2), paragraph; paragraphs (1), (3), (see pages 667—668, 1290—1291, notes 1—4). None alternatives acceptable. As second, reason appears why either singled special treatment, while third reviewable determinations involve factors Branch satisfactorily deal. (proof prevesting ownership); 5089, 37 arrangements). that, think congressional spell detail power conferring designed bestow claimants, assertedly too-narrow reading him. Rather consider specifications through guides Executive, thereby lessening burden decision. 19. 16 conclude excludes instance, involved, 670, 1292), unavailing petitioner.13 17 contentions dealt shortly. urged event complaint, allegations comes must taken true, alleges capricious. However, conclusory read isolation complaint's factual considerations set forth denial based. Reagan Farmers' Loan & Co., 154 362, 401, 1047, 1056, 38 1014. So read, properly charging more erroneous. This charged official exercise statutory discretion, acted beyond scope powers, where availability attended quite different controlling Cf., Accardi Shaughnessy, 347 260, 74 499, 98 681; Leedom Kyne, 358 184, 79 180, 210. 18 Finally, Declaratory Judgments 28 C.A. 2201, 2202 carries him further. embraces others. Additionally, independent source federal jurisdiction, Skelly Oil Phillips Petroleum 339 671, 70 876, 879, 94 1194; presupposes existence judicially remediable right. No exists 19 correctly held lacked over action, affirmed. 20 Affirmed. 21 BRENNAN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK, DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 22 gone towards establishing proposition preclusion adjudicating private lightly inferred. 210; Harmon Brucker, 355 579, 78 433, 503; Stark Wickard, 321 288, 559, 733; American School Magnetic Healing McAnnulty, 187 94, 23 47 90. Generalizations dangerous, safety one rule, nonreviewability exception demonstrated.1 To sure, clear command review; inferred purpose, supra, thought proved shows quick draw conclusion. cannot agree gives direction matter courts. Questions review, course, now us; simply all. states Act's '(t)he claimants and, 54. Let us, then, take close fully-focused look include, compare them seeks. 24 9(a) enemies; they equity property.2 same enemies.3 But apparent contemplate remedy—a suit property; officers. There application made brought. requirement filing notice clearly distinguishes making return, latter optional. Draeger Shipping Crowley, 49 F.Supp. 215; Duisberg 54 365. Stoehr Wallace, 255 239, 246, 293, 296, 604. Even applicant chooses seek instituted completed. each completely other; extent putting 'and/or' books. In sense, said action. action's taken. requires plenary, de novo adjudication controverted issues lawsuit between citizens. 25 applied hand remedy. does, precludes inference provides. subject developed many principles defining limiting quantum afforded adjudication. generally narrow directed end adjudication, points up contended latter, order They administrator gave returning it. Greene McElroy, 360 474, 510, 1400, 1421, 1377 (concurring opinion). former precluded, hardly is. approach interpretation cases like symbolize available. means offended since construction recognizes nature, attaches general attribute our system—judicial 26 indicating contrary says originally early versions statute, final enactment very implicit. not; rather remedy, patterned style 9.4 adds another proof get 32(a); tell us normal into foreclosed. Markham's remarks, quoted Court, explicable counterpart 9's fact, spoken response 'the individual affected appeal land determined.' 13. good description functions 9. describe exercising function mentions passage, afford similar 9.5 Thus alternative enough ordinary sort 9's. 27 demonstrate policy acting impliedly 32. lawsuits, demonstration pursuance broad negate well. principle apply: 'Generally, injured act government excess implied powers.' 581 582, 435. established expression Act; 'preclude review.' holds within meaning 10, 'agency Since found, question, sought, construction, totally exclusively officers determine—not give considerable weight. Cf. Labor Relations Board Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 111, 130, 851, 860, 1170; Gray Powell, 314 402, 411, 62 326, 332, 86 301. Once seems untenable. law; detailed moderately specified standard. ultimate 'in States,' 32(a)(5), reservoir discretion lies never reached. need speculate about breadth inquiry based ground, grounds statute. adjusted problem Here come 32(a)(2)(D). proviso's viewed administratively standards. commonplace principles, fall basis. novelty standards Hearings, 19) teach weight say, much review.6 my mind, squarely point. bristled one. rendered provided, law, retreat unavailable declining 32(a)(1): 'That prescribe, immediately vesting transfer (whether appointed States), inheritance, devise, bequest, operation 32(a)(2) disqualifies: (A) Governments Germany, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary Rumania; (B) corporations associations organized laws nations; (C) voluntarily Dec. 7, 1941, nation, citizens, diplomatic officers, persecuted persons; (D) nations, persons, engaged business Mar. 1946; (E) foreign which, controlled falling above categories. 32(a)(3): 'that claimed, September 1939, used, assent thereof arrangement conceal receive subsection (a)(2) 32(a)(4): actual potential Renegotiation October 31, 1942 (56 1013; 35 89—96), returned predecessor interest, any, 1942; security undertakings adequate assure satisfaction liabilities retained therefor 32(a)(5). 'an citizen Hungary, Rumania, date service States) territory nation occupied military naval forces territory: Provided, notwithstanding subdivision who, consequence decree, regulation subject, discriminating political, racial, religious groups, abrogated, enjoyed citizenship On May 16, delegated Custodian. Order 9725, Fed.Reg. 5381, note. Oct. 9788, 11981, stated essence follows: 'Even assumed license disallowed racial group discriminated against. Anti-Nazis non-Nazis do constitute group.' (Citing past decisions.) '(a)ny ally enemy' (defined supplemented First Powers 55 838) Columbia district resides. 419, resident, concededly At time, relating remedies, 33 providing commencement suits 9, 34 debt allowable 925). spread Congressional Record, approval Chairman Ranking Member Judiciary Committee, letter stating understanding 'this amendment regarded implying 32.' 92 Cong.Rec. 10486. Similarly, before, allowances counsel fees proceedings S.Rep. 920, 7. More particularly reference neither preceding enactment, nor Reports referring 784, 81st H.R.Rep. 2338, 600, Final Report Administration S.Res. 245, amended 47, 120, Sess.—contain suggestion publish Federal Register 30-day intention domestic corporations, publication 'shall confer property,' further revoked Register. fact third-party affecting must, accordance determine, relevant, claimant's militate First, doctrine primary call referral Navigation Cunard S.S. 284 52 247, 76 408; Far East Conference States, 342 570, 72 492, 96 576; Maritime Isbrandtsen, 356 481, 496—498, 860—862, 926. Moreover, necessity compelled parties ordinarily disposed justified, context inferring willingness reviewed court. Jaffe, Right Judicial Review, Harv.L.Rev. 432. pertinent part, '(a) Any right, title conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, paid seized hereunder Treasurer owing part file custodian oath containing particulars require; claimant, payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, delivery entitled: bar prosecution establish title, If sixty days required institute resides, or, corporation, place (to be, party defendant), entitled. '(c) (b) hereof (a) hereof, thereafter and/or subsection, effect. court, hereof.' added, 980, 9(c). 9(b). put pari materia provided: 'After country claimed. obtain decree ordering entitled, adjudicate broader addition note 4, supra. bills covered section' (§ 32) person, 'institute manner effect.' One officials decline vested, thereof. 32(a)(1). Is deemed guide granting returns, standard?

Category: 7