Block v. Hirsh

For the majority, Justice Holmes asserted that the congressional declaration of a housing emergency simply stated "a publicly notorious and almost world-wide fact." The only question was whether Congress could "meet [this emergency] in the way in which it has been met by most of the civilized countries of the world."

Under wartime circumstances, matters of purely private concern may become matters of public interest, thereby giving government regulatory powers it would not possess in peace time. These police powers can apply to real property and rents. Both eminent domain and zoning regulations show that tangible property is not "exempt from the legislative modification required from time to time in civilized life." If governments can limit the height of buildings, they can limit the amount of rent.

Housing is a necessary of life. All the elements of a public interest justifying some degree of public control are present. The only matter that seems to us open to debate is whether the statute goes too far.

And that was a matter which the courts would determine as cases arose.

The law provided for a "reasonable" rent, Holmes noted. Therefore, Holmes ruled, the law does no more than deprive the landlord of unjust profits from crowded conditions. In this, it goes no further than "the more debatable usury laws." The end justified the means used, and rent controls have been adopted for the same purpose all over the world.