Document: 358 U.S. 84 79 S.Ct. 141 3 L.Ed.2d 132 FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, Appellant,v.The DARLINGTON, Inc. No. 13. Argued Oct. 13, 1958. Decided Nov. 24, Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1959. See 937, 310. Mr. Alan S. Rosenthal, Washington, D.C., for appellant. J. C. Long, Charleston, S.C., appellee. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case involves a construction § 608 National Housing Act, 56 Stat. 303, 12 U.S.C. 1743, as amended by 10 Veterans' Emergency Act 1946, 60 207, 214, U.S.C.A. and Regulations issued thereunder. The aim stated in 608(b)(2) is to provide housing veterans World War II their immediate families. That end be achieved authorizing Federal Administration insure mortgages covering those projects. 608(a). Mortgagors, eligible insurance, are approved agency, which empowered require them 'to regulated or restricted rents sales, charges, capital structure, rate return, methods operation.' 608(b)(1). 2 Appellee South Carolina corporation formed 1949 obtain FHA mortgage insurance an apartment house constructed Charleston. was completed. Regulations, promulgated under (24 CFR 280 et seq.), that mortgaged property shall 'designed principally residential use, conforming standards satisfactory Commissioner, consisting not less than eight (8) rentable dwelling units on one site * *.' 280.34. further provide: 'No charge made mortgagor accommodations offered project excess rental schedule filed with Commissioner him his duly constituted representative prior opening rental, based upon maximum average fixed mortgage, thereafter changed except application to, written approval change by, Commissioner.' 280.30(a). 4 Veterans families given preference rentals; discrimination against children prohibited. 280.24. 5 submitted its monthly rates different types apartments. No transients supplied. Indeed there no representation any apartments would furnished. But affiliate appellee without knowledge furnished number apartments; some were leased daily basis at rentals never nor FHA, part going 'furniture rental.' Though appellee, required (§ 280.30(f)), reports it disclosure agency had either rented transients. continued rent both before after 1954 when 513 added Act. 68 610, (Supp. V) 1731b, 1731b. new section contained subsection (a) following declaration congressional purpose: 6 'The Congress hereby declares has been intent since enactment built aid insured used use; this excludes use such transient hotel purposes while remains outstanding.' And see H.R.Rep. 1429, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 17; S.Rep. 1472, 31.1 7 persisted space Appellant maintaining practice authorized. In 1955 brought suit declaratory judgment so long operates 'principally' keeps available extended tenancies, complies terms existence time obtained entitled District Court gave substantially relief demanded. 142 F.Supp. 341. On appeal, we remanded cause consideration three-judge court pursuant 28 2282, 2282. 352 977, 77 381, 363. remand adopted earlier findings conclusions single judge, 154 411, attaching however certain conditions decree unnecessary discuss here. It held barred 513(a) applied respondent unconstitutional. here direct appeal. 1253, 1253. 8 We take view. do think mortgagors right There express provision way other; but limitation seems fairly implied. deal legislation passed families,2 law promote motel business. To sure, speak use' 280.34)—words themselves preclude rentals. words Senate Report Amendment indicates,3 evidently commercial Moreover, Regulation goes describe 'dwelling units.' Id. word 'dwelling' common parlance means permanent residence. A person can course up residence even hotel. who come night have chosen settled abode. Yet idea permanency pervades concept 'dwelling.' 1947 book Planning Rental Projects. 'Housing' interpreted mean quarters families—quarters offer complete facilities family life.' again quality implicit.4 if provisions appellee's charter deemed relevant, interest note requirement 'Dwelling per room month Again focus permanency. 9 1946 forms estimates annual operating expenses project. None incident accommodations—such linen supply cleaning expenses—were listed. Once more may infer program designed letter field offices 1951 explaining criteria considered passing schedules operation, instructed to: '* bear mind objective production occupancy relatively nature contrary policy. will granted respect proposal anticipating occupancy.' interpretation clear unambiguous, and, taken indicates authority charged administration statute construed bar 11 already mentioned, all always 280.30 sought true felt approve dozen instances where public it. need stop inquire whether authority.5 said enough indicate privilege expressly included contemporaneous entrusted squarely contrary. circumstances ambiguous present allowed administrative carry day doubts might exist from reading bare statute. United States v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 310 534, 549, 1059, 1067, L.Ed. 1345; Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. States, 288 294, 315, 53 350, 796. When Amendment, accepted bars Subsequent not, course, conclusive determining what previous meant. later weight comes problem construction. Stafoff, 260 477, 480, 43 197, 67 358; Sioux Tribe 316 317, 329—330, 62 1095, 1100—1101, 86 1501. purpose construction, meaning ascribed point conclusion business benefited did include 13 If question free doubt think, still lies periphery vested rights attach. our starting Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 700, 718, 25 496—'Every possible presumption favor validity statute, continues until shown beyond rational doubt'—we how unconstitutional applied. penalized anything past. applies prospectively only. So due process issue score. As Fleming Rhodes, 331 100, 107, 1140, 1144, 91 1368, 'Federal regulation future action previously acquired prohibited Constitution. Constitution authorizes subsequently enacted legislation, fact limit interfere does condemn Immunity federal gained through forehanded contracts.'6 14 look hard find semblance contractual rising dignity involved lynch 292 571, 54 840, 78 1434. concerned practical, substantial rights, unclear gain hold subtle reasoning. doing protecting regulatory system designed. Those cannot object legislative scheme buttressed subsequent amendments achieve end. Cf. Viex Sixth Ward Ass'n, 32, 792, 1061; Keefe Clark, 322 393, 64 1072, 88 1346. Invocation Due Process Clause protect asserted make ghost Lochner New York, 198 45, 539, 49 walk again. 15 Reversed. 16 STEWART took decision case. 17 JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 18 Here broad, generalized legal conception, statutory nature, like "restraint trade" Sherman Law, constitutional provision, "due law" "the equal protection laws." Such conceptions fixity. By very they imply unfolding content. 19 Our quite different. pre-1954 leave us large judicial policy light developing circumstances. deals particularized way. presents usual language human ingenuity creating ambiguity. outside function add scope legislation. task imaginatively extrapolate answer Legislature unconsidered question; here, totally apartment-house owners small remotely seeking evade disadvantage interests whose behalf Government, Administration, private owners. opinions my brother HARLAN seem me compelling 20 brings much difficult just considered. because weighty constitutionality I deem essential attribute Congress. falls between cases sustaining retroactive adversely affecting existing Paramino Marshall, 309 370, 600, 814, hand, Lynch 1434, other. While, differentiation 'remedy' 'right' takes into treacherous territory, difference meaningless. two cited sustain remedial modifications though affect 'rights,' instance wiping out Brandeis, Court, called 'vested rights.' page 577, 842. Insofar Darlington completely wipe proper 608, found challenged, unavoidable impair rights' respondent. respecting full import apply situation. 21 Accordingly, join HARLAN'S opinion. 22 HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER WHITTAKER join, 23 (that is, far concerned, periods 30 days) building, covered FHA. Darlington's consummated December 1949. At neither controlling amended, regulations thereunder, 24 seq., prohibiting first 1954, five years made. largely adopting district judge originally heard, stood 1949, issued, forbidden occasional rentals, Administrator now prohibit involve relevant 1954.1 holds event prohibitory prevent From these holdings must dissent. construing opinion, proceeded erroneous premise. 'no (pre-1954) implied.' view, however, FHA-insured rather making them. Given issue, record Court's position, below clearly right. 26 1. noted, implementing barren excluding 27 2. (1) height Charleston's season ten percent building's total occupancy; (2) priority ever rejected, desiring so-called 'permanent' wait same'; (3) 'does advertise hotel, license such, signs appear indicating willingness accept transients.' 349. According utmost effect conceded families, recitals subject (italics supplied), am unable understand why practices, lower court, should regarded violative spirit provisions. Not passage suggestion were, 'evidently (as distinguished transient) rentals.' 3. found, nothing charter, bylaws, note, FHA's advance approval, lease thirty (30) days.' only period appearing instruments following, charter: (appellee) three 346. too 'dwelling,' does, implied prohibition less-than-30-days 29 4. actually specific veteran demand fallen off, inquired position permissible simply referred 1954. These events conclusively show construe altogether. 5. engaged kind subvert Its effort plug gap revenues left falling off long-term space, depict sub rosa operation. 31 Upon undisputed facts, reinforced other factors detailed below, impugning soundness holding existed embarked record. new, merely confirmatory, 32 Hence consider stand fall well Act's effective date (see 1731b(b), 1731b(b)), increase obligations assumed contract States. can. correctly put it: 'When enters relations, duties therein governed generally applicable contracts individuals.' 351. 1434; 496. What war-risk here: 'As power them, clause prohibits annulling unless, indeed, within police paramount power.' 579, 843. contend possesses general over relationship, pointed 'paramount power' imposition prohibitions justified Under reason disregarding principles set forth cited, particularly ample justification 'the afford interests, 353.2 treatment reinforce view about Act; else straining bring matter statute? provides that, exceptions multifamily operated purposes. 513(b). authorized define 'rental purposes' days constitutes 513(e). 1130, 79th Sess.; 1580, Sess. 31, states: 'Your committee believe violated operation establishment serve needs residing projects accommodations) firmly believes establishments conducted manner convert portion furnishing same tone exhibited Committee Reports various 608. For instance, reporting Banking Currency stated: 'Since main (authorizations additional insurance) reduce risks builders order encourage volume housing, calls special attention bill places emphasis housing. every reasonable during emergency title VI, individual units. While home ownership encouraged, percentage yet possess certainty income location, financial means, purchase homes time. House Representatives housing.' 8. (Italics added.) limited situations. landlord eviction state Price Control Extension rules removal tenants premises grounds landlord. could enjoined evicting judgment, 'vested' possibility dilution Congress' exercise power. heard reported references 411. imposed (plaintiff) conditions: '(a) plaintiff lease, ieasing, 15% '(b) charges furnishings incidentals supplied connection therewith. '(c) itself 'hotel', advertising medium, circulation letters, maintenance signs, otherwise solicit occupancy, advise occupancy. '(d) occupants food beverage service, maintain regular bell boy service.' retained jurisdiction effectuating decree. demonstrated unusual gives operators seek injunctions violations 611, U.S.C.(Supp. 1731b(i), 1731b(i). also testimony Arthur Packard Earl M. Johnson, respectively Chairman Board Treasurer Hotel Association, committees considering bills became Hearings Currency, 2889, 2938, 2949, pp. 654—661; 2nd H.R. 7839, 507—515.

Category: 7