Document: 369 U.S. 482 82 S.Ct. 901 8 L.Ed.2d 54 CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION et al. No. 187. Argued March 1, 1962. Decided April 30, William M. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox, respondent Federal Power Commission. Arthur H. Dean, New York City, El Paso Natural Gas Co. Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced BRENNAN. 1 Company first acquired stock Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. and then applied to Commission authority acquire assets pursuant § 7 Act, 52 Stat. 825, 15 U.S.C. 717f(c), U.S.C.A. 717f(c). This application was dated August 7, 1957. Prior thereto, on July 22, 1957, Government commenced an action against Northwest, alleging that Paso's acquisition violated Clayton Act,1 38 731, as amended, 64 1125, 18, 18. On September filed a motion dismiss antitrust suit or stay it, pending completion proceedings before October 21, denied after hearing; we certiorari. 355 950, 78 553, 2 528. In May June 1958, Department wrote four letters Commission, asking proceeding be stayed outcome suit. 29, advised it would not its proceedings. The invited Antitrust Division participate in administrative proceedings; but did do so. 3 hearings started 17, 1958. Ocotober 2, moved District continuance 6, asked postpone hearing, final which had been set trial November if court Northwest's proceeded with trial, continue merger date conflict case, granted continuance, proceed hearing. 13, continued until decision latter were concluded, authorizing December 23, 1959. 22 F.P.C. 1091, 23 350. consummated 31, 4 Petitioner intervened 27, obtained review Appeals, affirmed (111 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 296 F.2d 348), Judge Fahy dissenting. We certiorari, 368 810, 47, 20. 5 Evidence violations is plainly relevant applications, part content 'public convenience necessity' used Act found laws United States. City Pittsburgh v. 99 113, 237 741. 6 Immunity from lightly implied. exemption agricultural cooperatives Capper-Volstead 1922, §§ 291, 292, became Maryland Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n States, 362 458, 80 847, 880. While gave immunity 'transactions duly given * Secretary Agriculture under any statutory provision vesting such power Secretary,' held only approve 'marketing agreements' (id., 469—470, 855) other types agreements restraints, typically covered laws. Accordingly, authorized direct cooperative dispose unit independent producer stifle competition restrain trade. could assume Congress, having limited laws, nonetheless overall inclusive one. See States Borden Co., 308 188, 198 202, 60 182, 188—190, 84 L.Ed. 181. 'When there are two acts upon same subject, rule give effect both possible.' Id., at 198, 188. Here, R.C.A., 358 334, 79 457, 354, while 'natitrust considerations' issue interest, convenience, o51, 467), no 'pervasive regulatory scheme' (ibid.) including has entrusted And see National Broadcasting 319 190, 223, 63 997, 1012, 87 1344. Under Interstate Commerce mergers carriers approved have immunity, 5(11) 49 5(11), specifically provides involved 'shall they hereby relieved operation *.' McLean Trucking 321 67, 370, 88 544. There comparable Act. Section Act—which prohibits acquisitions 'where line commerce section country, may substantially lessen competition, tend create monopoly'—contains proviso 'Nothing contained this shall apply transactions words authority' 'under power' grant adjudicate issues. Congress made clear '* intended agency' mentioned powers does already possess.' S.Rep.No. 1775, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. U.S.Code Cong. Service 1950, 4300. Commission's standard, forth acquisition, merger, etc., will serve necessity.' If existing natural gas companies violate 20(a) 'transmit evidence' Attorney General 'who, his discretion, institute necessary criminal proceedings.' Other agencies enforce when comes certain classes persons;2 included list. decide whether case one select is: should merits courts challenging validity transaction laws? think not. those circumstances await courts. 9 considered interplay between said: 10 'Section brought, corporation another where 'the monopoly.' Exempt, however, authority. shows, reasons presiding examiner, placed reliance violation injunction unless carefully exercised judgment nevertheless public interest. What attempting arrive necessity. reaching our determination, determine required consider bearing policy (99 113), 741, 754 (CADC). With find lessening in-the consumer markets producing fields, prevent approving because factors outweigh elimination competitor. appears substantial.' 1095. 11 Apart fact undertake make finding reserved Act,3 practical why hand acted. 12 One approves later hold illegal, unscrambling necessary. supra. Thus needless waste time money involved. Also these processes often raise complicated perplexing problems tax matters otherwise, recent % e. i. d/u Pont, & 353 586, 77 872, 1057; 366 316, 81 1243, 318, shows.4 Such complexities inherent situation, approval bar 13 Another reason aegis being matter bound carry momentum into very prospect undoing what done raises powerful influence litigation, E. I. Du supra, illustrates. 14 orderly procedure taking action. so far material here, prescribed effect. confers jurisdiction over companies,5 them. Had unlawful, entire aside limine. lawful, presumably remained. When proceeds face undecided preceded, was, substance treats relation companies—from merger—as integrated transaction. approved, allowed indirection directly. 16 It us say complementary legislative policies reflected better accommodated. Our function frustrated agency. Where primary agency, withhold agency Texas Pac. R. Abilene Cotton Oil 204 426, 27 350, 51 553. converse also true, lest whose enforcement situation taken Moreover, noted, holding 'any substantial' domain pending. 17 Appeals reversed remanded conformity opinion. ordered. 18 FRANKFURTER took case. 19 WHITE consideration 20 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, 21 originating today announces new surprising procedural rule: 'proceed (merger antecedent) transaction(s) laws,' must abstain determination 'await action.' (Ante, U.S., pp. 487, 489, S.Ct., 905, 906.) turn facts said peculiar particular Without adverting legal principle statute support decision, lay down pervasive rule, born solely own abstract notions 'orderly procedure' requires, seemingly henceforth govern every involving respect applicable litigation I cannot subscribe broadly works havoc proper relationship judicial functions kind. hand, transfers agencies, deprives government them interlocutory relief appropriate. entails illustrated case: A business great magnitude importance, is, least being, naught, without slightest inquiry charges leveled weighty Court's more unusual (1) despite court's denial belatedly sought Government; (2) Solicitor General, representing interests respectively proceedings, ultimate order left abide event meanwhile stand; (3) instance intervenor even party Government's 24 undiscriminating nature reach become apparent attention focused events occurring prior here attack. instituted civil Utah Company, seeking alleged occurred when, beginning January embarked program acquiring nearly all Pacific's outstanding common stock. complaint purchase declared directed divest itself No requested. 25 authorization merge own. Despite intention further intermingle affairs corporations, seek temporary Utah. Paso, contended 'primary jurisdiction' regard resided stayed. Its Court, 3, leave file petition common-law certiorari decision. 26 returned again effort obtain maintaining status quo Instead, Assistant charge suggested terminated. request rejected withdrew express invitation participate. Hearings examiner scheduled begin At hearing several pretrial Government, time, asset forthcoming.1 That renewed thereafter. began recessed 12. 28 passed application, once noting refused intervene agreed defer Court. notified denied, date. issued granting 'until applications now it.' never mandamus available means. subsequently holds entered jurisdiction. 29 relies three 'practical reasons' conclusion failure promptly pendente lite suit, press expressed willingness court, application: executed, thereafter 'unscrambling' 'needless money' necessary; 'raise otherwise'; 'is suit.' 488—489, 906). Whatever weight considerations deemed have, their instance, indeed 1958 enjoin consummation merger. Their original entirely inappropriate, affect merger.2 30 25, grants Courts 'to violations' empowers Attorneys equity violations.' 'and decree, restraining prohibition just premises.' Consequently, duty pass desirability avoid 'unscrambling.' us, than year knew requested execution plan. presumed based evaluation likelihood success difficulties might arise denied. Not motion, surely revive indirectly attacking order. petitioner, State California, empowered assert claims relating unavailable plaintiff action? II. 31 Similarly, whatever meant suggestion carries 'momentum' factor remedied, necessary, purging improper deriving invalidating holding—which unnecessary and, argues, premature3—that concluding gives immunizing claim, lends added view permitted suggests irrelevant considering claim guard giving irrelevancy, passing application. lower ultimately go wrong regard, error correctible 32 Likewise little difficulty finds 'undoing done' (ante, 906) fearful score appropriate ensuring nothing III. 33 Finally, record justifies refusal amounted abuse discretion. premise agency's immunize liability, certificate necessity permit subject possible infirmities. ahead hardly regarded 34 conclusion, creates wholly artificial imbalance law regulation federally regulated industries. By displacing continuing supervision terms 'just premises' absolute prohibiting regulating seems room sensible accommodation sets instance. Neither inflexible nor supported 35 affirm. part: 'No engaged acquire, directly indirectly, whole share capital Trade commerce, monopoly. corporations stocks assets, use voting proxies vests compliance persons thereto: amended; Communications wire radio communication transmission energy; Civil Aeronautics Board air foreign 1938; Reserve banks, banking associations, trust companies; character follows: competition.' note 1. designed arrest incipiency substantial competing corporation, restraints monopolies market which, reasonable probability, appear likely result corporation.' 589, 875. As remedy stated 1254: 'We entitled surer, cleaner divestiture. follow doubt. For well settled successfuly borne considerable burden establishing law, doubts resolved favor.' 7(c) natural-gas company person proposed construction extension engage transportation sale gas, facilities therefor, operate extensions thereof, force operations.' However, asserted brief parties. Because posture question pendency relief. can favor staying touching 'those areas active compensate inability provide adequate regulation.' Comm. R.C.A. Communications, Inc., 346 86, 92, 73 998, 1003, 97 1470. impact felt would, suggested, open defense

Category: 7