Federal Housing Administration v. the Darlington, Inc.
358 U.S. 84 · No. 13 · 1958 term · Warren Court
Decided Nov 24, 1958 · argued Oct 13, 1958
Economic activity · Miscellaneous economic regulation
Majority opinion: William Douglas
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed. Federal Housing Administration won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court, and its own ruling ends the case.
Federal Housing Administration was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1958 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William DouglasWrote the majority opinion
Hugo BlackJoined the majority
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John HarlanWrote a dissent
Felix FrankfurterWrote a dissent
Charles WhittakerJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Potter Stewart.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Federal Housing AdministrationFederal Housing Administration
- Respondent
- the Darlington, Inc.Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 12 U.S.C. § 1743
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Nov 24, 1958DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed. Federal Housing Administration won.
- Oct 13, 1958ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
18 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous economic regulation, newest first.
- Kennedy v. Braidwood Management145 S. Ct. 2427Jun 27, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2427Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System144 S. Ct. 2440Jul 1, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 2440Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Biden v. Nebraska600 U.S. 477Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 477Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation142 S. Ct. 2354Jun 24, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2354Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita142 S. Ct. 1968Jun 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1968Economic activity7–27–2 band
- American Hospital Association v. Becerra142 S. Ct. 1896Jun 15, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1896Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Biden v. Missouri142 S. Ct. 647Jan 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 647Economic activity5–45–4 band
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration142 S. Ct. 661Jan 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 661Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Allison Engine Company, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel. Roger L. Sanders and Roger L. Thacker553 U.S. 662Jun 9, 2008 · 553 U.S. 662Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- John Bridge, et al. v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. et al553 U.S. 639Jun 9, 2008 · 553 U.S. 639Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Philadelphia Gear Corp.476 U.S. 426May 27, 1986 · 476 U.S. 426Economic activity6–36–3 band
- United States v. Clark et al.454 U.S. 555Jan 13, 1982 · 454 U.S. 555Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Zuber et al. v. Allen et al.396 U.S. 168Dec 9, 1969 · 396 U.S. 168Economic activity4–27–2 band
- United States v. McNinch, Doing Business As Home Comfort Co., et al.356 U.S. 595May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 595Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Rainwater et al., Doing Business As R. S. Rainwater & Sons, et al. v. United States356 U.S. 590May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 590Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- O'Neill v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.348 U.S. 956Mar 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 956Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Trade Commission v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., Inc. et al.348 U.S. 940Feb 14, 1955 · 348 U.S. 940Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- County Board of Arlington County et al. v. State Milk Commission.346 U.S. 932Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 932Economic activity8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.