Today in Supreme Court History: January 5, 1931

1/5/1931: O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 251 (decided January 5, 1931): upholding New Jersey statute requiring insurance agents not be paid above prevailing rates, as valid use of police power (“The business of insurance is so far affected with a public interest that the state may regulate the rates”); 5 – 4 decision, with the “Four Horsemen” dissenting (though they weren’t called that yet)

Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575 (decided January 5, 1948): acquittal as to conspiracy to present false invoices to ration board acted as res judicata barring trial as to abetting the publishing of the false invoices

United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (decided January 5, 1948): warrant needed to arrest and search passenger in car driven by possessor of counterfeit gas ration coupons (counterfeit coupons found on defendant’s person during station search should have been suppressed)

[apedad]

“The business of insurance is so far affected with a public interest that the state may regulate the rates.”

Many years ago, I was between jobs and got an offer with AFLAC to be an insurance agent (as an independent, not as an employee – which had its pros and cons).

I studied for the exam and got my Virginia Individual Virginia Insurance License.

Really made me appreciate why there is tremendous oversight of the insurance industry.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, you've piqued my curiosity. Got some examples to share?

[F.D. Wolf]

“The business of insurance is so far affected with a public interest that the state may regulate the rates”

Of course, the statute in question had nothing to do with regulating insurance rates, but with regulating salesmen's commissions. The majority pointed out that the amount of the commission would affect the insurance rates, as higher commissions would lead to higher rates. Perhaps, responded the dissent, but so does every other expense paid by the company, from the price of pencils to employee salaries. Are we next going to let the government regulate those too? ("Yes" would be the Court's answer five years later.)

It's notable that the dissent in O'Gorman was a joint dissent, ascribed not to one justice but to all four. Joint opinions occur for various reasons and are relatively rare. Here, the reason seems to be to make a point, a sort of "Valediction of the Horsemen". They could sense which way the judicial winds were blowing. Soon enough, the government wouldn't have to bother showing an economic regulation was critical to the "public interest" rather than a (heretofore unconstitutional) regulation of an essentially private contract.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've often wondered how much ration fraud there was during WWII.

Along with how much fraud was openly ignored.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

My impression (not eyewitness) is that black marketeering existed but was manageable during the war. Americans supported the war and understood the argument that reduced civilian consumption freed up resources needed for war. They applied pressure against neighbors who conspicuously flouted rationing, but allowed for minor exceptions. For example, a mother might buy a black market cut of beef to feed a military son home on leave.
(2) With the end of the war, planners realized that voluntary acceptance of rationing would collapse. Formal rationing was mostly discontinued before 1946, but the Truman Administration tried to keep price controls. Resulting shortages delivered Congress to Republican control in the 1946 election.

[Krayt]

Economic freedom provides the economic dynamism that allows capitalist countries to massively outstrip all others in production during war (and also during not-war). Both this issue, and the wage and price control crap of the other of today's issues, should be kept to a minimum outside war, and even then.

Such controls plagued humanity, as a primary vector for corruption. What better way to get in the way, to get paid to get out of the way? Ready-made rhertoric. This greatly preceded any remote notions of freedom or democracy. View such rhetoric with a jaundiced eye.

[Dan Schiavetta]

During the Cold War conservatives kept telling us that Soviet military production far outstripped ours -- despite having a much smaller economy and no competition. It was all centrally planned. Explain.

[Frank Drackman]

They spent a bigger % of their GDP on defense than we did. There Weapons systems were simpler and built by workers getting peanuts. Pretty Simple.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, gasoline rationing was necessary not because it was used for the war effort (at least initially) but because the German subs were sinking all the gasoline tankers coming up the East Coast, creating a shortage. Apparently there were no pipelines then.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hey Sarcasto:

"HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A liberal activist asked a Pennsylvania court on Tuesday to bar U.S. Rep. Scott Perry from the state’s primary ballot, arguing that Perry isn’t eligible because of his efforts to keep President Donald Trump in office and block the transfer of power to Democrat Joe Biden." January 2, 2024

Dems would never use the Trump precedent against others, right?

[David Nieporent]

"A liberal activist" is not "Dems," but why wouldn't Dems use a provision of the constitution expressly meant to protect the country from insurrectionists, against insurrectionists?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Rationing would not work today. A large percentage of the population would be gulled into believing it’s a conspiracy in the service of incipient tyranny.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Mandatory sacrifice is a whole different kettle of fish from the noble "sacrifice" as you used it.