Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Schilling v. Rogers — Opinion of the Court

Petitioner then sued in the District Court to review the administrative determination, claiming it to have been arbitrary and illegal. The court denied the Government's motion to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, in line with its own prior course of decisions, that judicial review of the administrative disposition was precluded by § 7 (c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 7 (c) .
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Schilling v. Rogers — Opinion of the Court

The question for decision is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to review a determination of the Director, Office of Alien Property, sanctioned by the respondent Attorney General, holding this proviso inapplicable to the facts presented by the petitioner's claim. [7]
Petitioner, a national and resident of Germany at all material times, duly filed with the Attorney General a claim under the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso for the return of the proceeds of certain property vested by the respondent's predecessors in 1942, 1947, and 1948, asserting an interest therein of some $68,500.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature