Document: 351 U.S. 40 76 S.Ct. 569 100 L.Ed. 910 FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES and I.C.C. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. EXPRESS et al. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, Inc., al., Appellants, AKRON, CANTON AND YOUNGSTOWN R. CO. Nos. 158—161. Argued Submitted March 7, 1956. Decided April 23, Mr.Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., for Mr. David G. Macdonald, .d.C., East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Carl L. Phinney, Dallas, Tex., Frozen Food Express. Messrs. Charles P. Reynolds, d.C., Helmetag, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., appellant Railroads. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Part II Interstate Commerce Act, 49 Stat. 543, as amended, U.S.C. § 301 seq., U.S.C.A. grants Commission pervasive control over motor carriers. Common carriers contract by vehicle, subject to that part must have a certificate public convenience necessity or permit issued Commission. §§ 206(a), 209(a). The has powers investigation determine if carrier complied with Act; it authority issue an order compelling compliance. 204(c). These requirements permit* are not, however, applicable 'motor vehicles used in carrying property consisting ordinary livestock, fish (including shell fish), agricultural horticultural) commodities (not including manufactured products thereof), such not any other property, passengers compensation.' 203(b)(6). 2 controversy these cases centers around this 'agricultural' exemption. After instituted on its own motion, specified within meaning 3 hearing application term 'agricultural * thereof)' 203(b)(6) was held before examiner. It at which various governmental officials agencies producers, shippers, appeared presented evidence. Commission's decision form report order. 52 M.C.C. 511. report, concerns groups commodities, covers 71 pages printed record. findings list those finds exempted under not. incorporates 'findings' states proceeding 'be, is hereby discontinued.' 4 Express, plaintiff, transporting numerous ruled were nonexempt but claims commodities.' Plaintiff, who party administrative proceeding, suit three-judge District Court, 28 2325, enjoin set aside, naming United States defendants. 1336, 1336; 550, 305(g), 305(g); 60 243, 5 1009, 1009. complaint alleged plaintiff common holding authorizes transport certain between designated points places; transporting, addition exempt sought no from Commission; latter accordingly deprived right granted statute; classifying unlawful; threatens transportation exempt. Secretary Agriculture intervened, supporting plaintiff's position some commodities. Other interveners trucking associations railroads support defendant supports opposes others. being view case controlled Los Angeles & S.L.R. Co., 273 299, 47 413, 651, dismissed action, saying 'order' judicial review. 128 F.Supp. 374. here appeal. 1253, 2101(b), 2101(b). 6 We disagree do think supra, controlling here. In nonreviewable valuation carrier's made Court more than might never be basis court. Brandeis, speaking said: 7 'The so-called complained one does command do, refrain doing, thing; grant withhold authority, privilege, license; extend abridge power facility; liability, civil criminal; change existing future status condition; obligation. This merely formal record conclusions reached after study data collected course extensive research conducted Commission, through employees. exercise solely function investigation. *' 309—310, 414, 651. 8 situation quite different. determination commodity product immediate practical impact shippers well. warns every carrier, so risk incurring criminal penalties. 222(a). Where unauthorized operations occur, may proceed administratively cease desist Such orders enforceable courts. 222(b). And wilful violation ground revocation permit. 212. therefore abstract, theoretical, academic. Cf. El Dorado Oil Works States, 328 12, 18—19, 66 843, 846—847, 90 1053. classifies is, indeed, ordering arranging their affairs. Rochester Telephone Corp. 307 125, 132, 59 754, 757, 758, 83 1147. Carriers without appropriate permit, because they believe carry run risks. A authorized dependent articles return load lose operate all, respect 'order.' alike told free bargain rates, pay filed charges. substance 'declaratory' one, see 240, 1004(d), touches vital interests sets standard shaping manner important segment business will done. Columbia Broadcasting System 316 407, 62 1194, 86 1563. consequences we summarized conjectural. itself places interpretation action argues, contrary case, finality conclude issues raised justiciable should adjudicate merits. 9 Reversed. 10 HARLAN, dissenting. 11 I agree had jurisdiction entertain aside seems me falls squarely carefully developed rules require intervention withheld until complete development. find nothing nature commends reviewability stage fact promulgation preceded lengthy contains series 'conclusions.' factors permitted obscure true character 12 self-initiated investigation, participated, entered discontinuing proceedings incorporating 'findings conclusions' That intended 'legislative' regulation apparent, since put ordinarily promulgating regulations. simply lists considered determines whether exemption; nowhere commands hauling non-exempt comply either general Act. clear, therefore, can brought itself. equally clear did rights specific 13 Act does, course, provide sanctions enforce compliance provisions. An uncertificated runs prosecution 222(a) But operative effect proceeding—it exists enforcement takes against particular again only question would rather order, violated. If instituted, issued, entitled contest statutory precisely scope 14 Nor likened status, reviewable As understand touchstone 'necessarily immediately carried direction obedience previously formulated mandatory addressed generally all amenable authority.' page 144, 764. regulations different directed binding even Neither analogized declaratory direct threat prosecution—see note 11. Indeed, consider determinations final answer exemption, purposes. evident Lines 350 49, 574, where heard new evidence there involved evidently ready reconsider embodied 15 To sure, serve warning interprets way, courts give views indeterminate weight construing statute. very fact, instead justifying reviewability, strong argument it. willingness, individual cases, up tentative reviewed. When merits, aid statute interpretations admittedly inconclusive, given seem anything freeze them present immature state. For know, been recognized need further study. 16 Years experience shown presents difficult problems interpretation, wary establishing procedure prematurely throw into questions construction arising context concrete facts, bring benefit agency assigned administer done appeal makes wisdom today's questionable. 17 Lastly, sort which, times, led regard ripe 1563, existence had, more, attacking them. There much said finding when entails affected Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 624, 95 817. way worse off now issued; greater liability occasioned informal expression anything, better position, make reasoned judgment applicability principal reason jthe making findings. 18 my view, then, language quoted majority Co. aptly describes wise nor changed asking us hold reviewable, calls 'formal determination' significant that, Foods definitive. Today's opens door wide premature review kinds assent affirm below. Exempted also provisions concerning rates charges, 217, 218, bodily injury damage insurance. 215.

Category: 8