Document: 344 U.S. 33 73 S.Ct. 67 97 L.Ed. 54 UNITED STATES et al.v.L. A. TUCKER TRUCK LINES, Inc. No. 18. Argued Oct. 20, 1952. Decided Nov. 10, Mr. Edward M. Reidy, Washington, D.C., for appellants. B. W. La Tourette, St. Louis, Mo., appellee. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 One Cunningham applied to Interstate Commerce Commission a certificate public convenience and necessity authorize extension his existing motor carrier route.1 A railroad eleven carriers, including appellee, intervened oppose. The issues were referred an examiner who after hearing recommended that, with exceptions not material here, be granted. Appellee excepted, whereupon Division 5 Commission, in substance, approved recommendation. requested reconsideration by full which was denied, then petitioned 'extraordinary relief,' also refused. thereupon issued Cunningham. Appellee, upon ground that evidence did show need additional transportation service, District Court set aside order. United States answered three-judge court convened. 2 On day appointed hearing, appellee moved leave amend its petition raise, first time, contention Commission's action invalid want jurisdiction because had been pursuant § 11 Administrative Procedure Act.2 allowed amendment and, proof appointment accordance Act, invalidated order without going into merits issue tendered original complaint.3 This appeal raises but single question whether such objection, made at stage proceedings, erroneously entertained. We hold it was. 3 offer nor require any excuse failure raise objection least one many opportunities during administrative proceeding. does claim have misled or way hampered ascertaining facts about examiner's appointment. It bestir itself learn until long proceeding closed months case Court, time promptly supplied based sustained. 4 apparent reason complacency actually prejudiced conduct manner examiner. There is no suggestion he exhibited bias, favoritism unfairness. Nor there assuming from relationships He act expected both as prosecutor judge. him, institute become party interest Neither function except decide justly between contestants adversary clearly afterthought, brought forward last possible moment undo proceedings consideration can prevail only technical compulsion irrespective considerations practical justice. In Riss & Co. v. States, 341 907, 71 620, 95 1345, this held officers applications certificates under 207(a) Act are subject provisions U.S.C.A. 1001 seq.4 But timeliness before us, twice challenged once, should been, hearings again on rehearing. That decision established litigant make demand entitled chosen prescribes. 6 recognized more than few decisions,5 Congress has statutes,6 orderly procedure good administration objections agency while opportunity correction reviewable courts. urged predetermined policy would required overrule if made. While may well true, obliged deal large number like cases. Repetition them might lead change policy, or, not, put notice accumulating risk wholesale reversals being incurred persistence.7 Simple fairness those engaged tasks administration, litigants, requires general rule courts topple over decisions unless body erred against appropriate practice. 7 argued, however, falls outside result below technically compelled because, irregular, some lost totally void. inference drawn our Wong Yang Sung McGrath, 339 33, 70 445, 94 616, contended we could sustained collateral attack writ habeas corpus found defect jurisdictional magnitude. inquire what Government denied considered taken time. effect omission raised briefs argument discussed Therefore, binding procedent point.8 Even own judicial power jurisdiction, followed Chief Marshall bound prior exercise where questioned passed sub silentio.9 8 foreclosed precedent, irregularity invalidate resulting overruled hearings. deprives so even absence timely nullity. 9 judgment reversed cause remanded determination merits. 10 Reversed remanded. FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 12 Were dispensing complacently called oriental justice, according individual alone, told, determine result, I join my brethren reversing judgment. For see disagree Court's view non-compliance requirements prejudice do deny rights personal waived, either explicitly assert them. 13 find explicit waiver clear me how charged knowledge official status basis whose report took adverse it. event, requirement adjudication must conducted independent something party. designed assure confidence process defining limiting various organs through function. 14 use term 'jurisdiction' verbal coat too colors. dealing legislation sought remedy believed evils agencies exercised their authority enactment June 11, 1946. accordingly prohibited commingling conflicting functions these agencies. say, therefore, created unwaivable limitations agencies, much definitions judiciary acts different categories cases empowered hear decide. act, imposed command thus within litigant. They bind confine itself. 15 cannot otherwise read decided Co., 1345. rest conclusion assumption silentio case. What am resting significance attached examiners inherent adjudication. 16 After supra, asked relieve deportation so. See Chapter III Supplemental Appropriations 1951, September 27, 1950, Pub.L. 843, 155a. same ruling validate previously disregard examiners. enact remedial legislation.1 construe controlling us. refer subsequent legislative history merely indication path undesirable consequences flowing corrected injustice. Situations arise when observance law suggest corrective legislation. e.g., Heinszen 206 370, 27 742, 51 1098. 17 DOUGLAS, 18 gives capricious twist law. assume reading federal type prescribed 60 Stat. 237, U.S.C. seq., vitiated not. separate investigative prosecuting functions. separation involving property interests liberty. condemned unfair practice grown up allowing man police officer, prosecutor, 19 Violation led Sung's save alien meet Act. proceeding, successfully though hearing.* 20 present likewise hearing; review completed. seem, reversal follow fortiori 21 No knows police, person affect particular decision. situations difference; others subtly corrupt process. important us practice; supervisors system enforced, selectively all coming 22 Of course, flouts mandate fair lose longer restricted testing historic sense. Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 467, 58 1019, 1024, 82 1461; Bowen Johnston, 306 19, 24, 59 442, 444, 83 455. error permeates entire goes very vitals therefore send back meets statutory standards fairness. occasion. 49 307, 307. 1010, 1010. 100 F.Supp. 432. Our announced herein, hearing. (96 452) apparently prompted point qualifications Spiller Atchison, T. S.F.R. 253 117, 130, 40 466, 471, 64 810; ex rel. Vajtauer Commissioner, 273 103, 113, 47 302, 306, 560; Northern Pacific R. 288 490, 494, 53 406, 407, 77 914; Unemployment Compensation Alaska Aragon, 329 143, 155, 245, 251, 91 136. Section 9(a) Securities 1933, 77i, 77i; 25(a) Exchange 1934, 78y, 78y; 24 Public Utility Holding Company 79x, 79x; Fair Labor Standards 29 210, 210; 10(e) National Relations 160(e), 160(e). informs five thousand commenced effective date orders indefinite period vulnerable required. grant application rehearing applicant Since consider examiner, will refuse rehearings other Webster Fall, 266 507, 45 148, 69 411. More, Cranch 159, 172, 397; Snow 118 346, 354, 1059, 1063, 30 207; Cross Burke, 146 82, 87, 22, 23, 36 896; Louisville Trust Knott, 191 225, 236, 119, 123, 48 159; Arant Lane, 245 166, 170, 38 94, 96, 62 223. bill successful House failed Senate. H.R. 5045. H.R.Rep.No.1637, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. * And case, respondent represented counsel proceedings.

Category: 8