1. The infirmities of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933,
which were the basis of decision in
United States v. Butler,
ante p.
297 U. S. 1, holding
it unconstitutional, were not cured by the Amendatory Act of August
24, 1935. The so-called tax exacted of processors still lacks the
quality of a true tax, and remains a means for effectuating the
regulation of agricultural production -- a matter not within the
powers of Congress. P.
297 U. S.
112.
2. The Court has no occasion to discuss or decide in this case
the question whether § 21(d) of the Amended Act affords an
adequate remedy at law for the recovery of money unconstitutionally
exacted of a processor. P.
297 U. S. 112.
3. In suits by processors to restrain a collector from assessing
and collecting "processing taxes" pursuant to the Agricultural
Adjustment Act, 1933, as amended by the Act of August 24, 1935,
this Court, in granting writs of certiorari, restrained the
collection upon the condition that the petitioners pay the amounts
of the accruing taxes to a depositary, to be withdrawn only upon
the further order of this Court. The exaction of the statute having
been found unconstitutional,
held that the impounded funds
should be returned to petitioners without regard to the adequately
of the remedy under § 21(d) of the Amended Act for recovery of
taxes collected, since the petitioners have not paid those funds as
taxes to the collector, and cannot now be required to do so, nor
can collection be enforced by distraint. P.
297 U. S.
112.
Decrees of the District Court vacated.
Certiorari, 296 U.S. 569, to the Circuit Court of Appeals after
denial by that court of applications for injunctions,
Page 297 U. S. 111
pending appeal, in suits brought by processors of rice against
the respondent collector to enjoin assessment and collection of
processing taxes under the Agricultural Adjustment Act as amended.
The District Court had dismissed the bills. The decrees of this
Court provide for return of moneys impounded under its orders,
vacate the decrees of the District Court, and remand the cases to
that court for entry of decrees of injunction.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is one of eight companion cases. [
Footnote 1] They were consolidated for hearing by the
District Court. It will be sufficient briefly to state the facts in
No. 577:
Page 297 U. S. 112
The petitioner, a processor of rice, filed its bill in District
Court for Eastern Louisiana to restrain the respondent from
assessing or collecting taxes levied for the month of September,
1935, and subsequent months pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment
Act, 1933, [
Footnote 2] as
amended by the Act of August 24, 1935. [
Footnote 3] The bill charges the exaction is
unconstitutional, and alleges the respondent threatens collection
by distraint, which will cause irreparable injury, as the
petitioner has no adequate remedy at law to recover what may be
collected. A preliminary injunction was sought. The respondent
filed a motion to dismiss, citing Revised Statutes, § 3224 and
§ 21(a) of the amended Agricultural Adjustment Act as
prohibiting restraint of collection, and also asserting that the
petitioner had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. The
court refused an interlocutory injunction and entered a decree
dismissing the bill. Appeal was perfected to the Circuit Court of
Appeals. The District Judge refused to grant an injunction pending
the appeal. Application to the Circuit Court of Appeals for such an
injunction was denied upon the view that the petitioner had an
adequate remedy at law and the statute deprived the court of
jurisdiction to restrain collection.
In praying a writ of certiorari, the petitioner asserted that,
by reason of the provisions of § 21(d), it would be impossible
to recover taxes collected, even though the act were
unconstitutional, since the section forbids recovery except upon a
showing of facts not susceptible of proof. This Court granted the
writ and restrained collection of the tax upon condition that the
petitioner should pay the amount of the accruing taxes to a
depository, to the joint credit of petitioner and respondent; such
funds to be withdrawn only upon the further order of the court.
Page 297 U. S. 113
The cause was advanced for hearing, and has been fully argued on
the questions of the constitutionality of the exaction and the
inadequacy of the remedy for recovery of taxes paid.
The changes made by the amendatory act of August 24, 1935, do
not cure the infirmities of the original act which were the basis
of decision in
United States v. Butler, ante, p.
297 U. S. 1. The
exaction still lacks the quality of a true tax. It remains a means
for effectuating the regulation of agricultural production, a
matter not within the powers of Congress.
We have no occasion to discuss or decide whether § 21(d)
affords an adequate remedy at law. As yet, the petitioner has not
paid the taxes to the respondent, and, in view of the decision in
the
Butler case, hereafter cannot be required so to do. If
the respondent should now attempt to collect the tax by distraint,
he would be a trespasser. The decree of the District Court will be
vacated, an appropriate order entered directing the repayment to
the petitioner of the funds impounded
pendente lite, and
the cause remanded to the District Court for the entry of a decree
enjoining collection of the assailed exaction. A similar
disposition will be made of the companion cases.
Decree vacated.
* Together with No. 578,
Dore v. Fontenot; No. 579,
United Rice Milling Products Co. v. Fontenot; No. 580,
Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc. v. Fontenot; No. 581,
Simon v. Fontenot; No. 585,
Levy Rice Milling Co. v.
Fontenot; No. 586,
Farmers Rice Milling Co. v.
Fontenot, and No. 587,
Noble-Trotter Rice Milling Co. v.
Fontenot -- all on writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
[
Footnote 1]
The others are: No. 578,
Dore v. Fontenot; No. 579,
United Rice Milling Products Co., Inc. v. Fontenot; No.
580,
Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc. v. Fontenot; No. 581,
Simon v. Fontenot; No. 585,
Levy Rice Milling Co.,
Inc. v. Fontenot; No. 586,
Farmers Rice Milling Co., Inc.
v. Fontenot, and No. 587,
Noble-Trotter Rice Milling Co.,
Inc. v. Fontenot.
[
Footnote 2]
C. 25, 48 Stat. 31.
[
Footnote 3]
C. 641, 49 Stat. 750.
