Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 41 > Issue 4 (1943)
Plaintiff, Price Administrator, sought to enjoin defendants from selling rubber tires and tubes to consumers without tire rationing certificates as required by the tire rationing regulations. Defendants contended that the regulations were void under the Fifth Amendment as taking of property without due process of law and without just or any compensation. Held, judgment for plaintiff. The tire rationing regulations, a proper exercise of the war powers vested by Congress in the President or some duly constituted department, agency, or officer of the federal government, are not in contravention of the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment against the taking of private property for public use without due process of law or just compensation. Henderson v. Bryan, (D. C. Cal. 1942) 46 F. Supp. 682.
Malcolm M. Davisson,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TIRE RATIONING,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol41/iss4/12