Nortz v. United States

Background

A private owner of 1928 United States gold certificates worth $106,300 presented them for redemption on January 17, 1934. He demanded payment in gold, received instead the same face amount in U.S. currency after delivering the certificates to the Treasury under protest, and sued for the difference, claiming about $64,334 in loss. The Court of Claims certified three questions about whether he was entitled to extra payment, whether the certificates were an express contract enabling suit, and whether the forced exchange amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation.

Reasoning

The Court focused on the first question: whether the holder could get more because an ounce of gold had a higher world-market price. The opinion explains that these gold certificates were themselves U.S. currency and legal tender calling for dollars, not specific amounts of gold metal. Congress had the power to regulate currency and to require delivery of gold or certificates in emergencies. Because the currency paid to the holder was on parity with the statutory dollar standard at the time, and there was no lawful U.S. market for privately dealing in gold coin, the holder suffered no actual loss under the law. The Court therefore answered the first question “No” and declined to decide the other two questions as unnecessary.

Real world impact

The ruling holds that, in that emergency exchange, certificate holders were not entitled to extra compensation when they received lawful currency on parity. It upholds broad Congressional authority to regulate gold and currency in a crisis. The Court did not resolve whether the certificates create an express contractual right to sue or whether any taking occurred in other circumstances.

Dissents or concurrances

Four Justices (McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and Butler) dissented; the opinion does not state their reasons in the certified text.