This case involves citrus fruit handlers in Florida challenging a federal marketing agreement and handling order (Order No. 7) issued under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which imposed weekly prorate restrictions on interstate shipments of citrus fruits. The plaintiffs alleged that these limits curtailed their packing operations, interfered with contracts, and violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause by confiscating property and restricting liberty of contract without compensation; they also cited changed market conditions due to unrestricted Texas shipments and California freezes. The court addressed motions to dismiss the amended bill filed by the Citrus Control Committee and the U.S. District Attorney. It denied the motions, holding that the pleadings sufficiently stated a claim for equitable relief because the regulations infringed protected property and contract rights under precedents like Adkins v. Children's Hospital, and that a statute valid under one set of facts may be invalid under others.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

In Purvis v. Bazemore, residents of Pinellas County, Florida, engaged in the cleaning and dyeing trade sued a local competitor, alleging violations of a code of fair competition approved under the National Industrial Recovery Act, including selling below regional prices, misleading advertisements, and exceeding the 48-hour weekly employee limit. The court declined to issue a temporary restraining order. It reasoned that the Act could not constitutionally authorize regulation of purely intrastate businesses such as a local pressing club, as Congress lacked authority under the Constitution to extend the statute that far, and that only United States attorneys, not private parties, had standing to seek injunctions under the Act's enforcement provisions.

business & regulatoryfederal powerlabor & employment