Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

were  viewed  less  as  guardians  of  core  private  rights  and 
more  as  impediments  to  expert  administrative  adjudica-
tion.  See 20 F. 4th 194, 219 (CA5 2021) (Oldham, J., con-
curring).  After  his  election  in  1904,  President  Theodore 
Roosevelt, who “shared the progressive faith in administra-
tive  expertise,”  sought  to  “rei[n]  in  judicial  review”  of  ad-
ministrative  action.  Merrill  955.  This  progressive  senti-
ment  led  to  the  Hepburn  Act,  34  Stat.  584,  which  was 
designed  to  curb  judicial  review  of  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission (ICC) rate orders.  Prior to the Hepburn Act,
the ICC was required to file a bill of equity in court to obtain 
judicial enforcement of its rate orders.  Merrill 955.  But, 
the Hepburn Act provided that the ICC’s “orders were to be 
self-executing  thirty  days  after  they  became  final,  unless
‘suspended  or  set  aside  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdic-
tion’ ”—almost  inverting  the  traditional  system.    Ibid. 
(quoting  34  Stat.  589).  While  the  Act  was  silent  on  the 
standard  of  review,  this  Court  understood  “the  implied
threat that if [it] did not back off from its aggressive review
practices, more drastic action would be in the offing.”  Mer-
rill 959. 

Accordingly,  the  Court  began  to  develop  what  is  now 
known as the “appellate review model.”  See id., at 963–965. 
While maintaining that the courts must decide “all relevant
questions of constitutional power or right” and other ques-
tions of law, ICC v.  Illinois Central R. Co., 215 U. S. 452, 
470 (1910), the Court held that an ICC order “supported by
evidence” must be “accepted as final,” ICC v. Union Pacific 
R. Co.,  222  U. S.  541,  547  (1912).   Following  the  Court’s
lead,  Congress  codified  the  appellate  review  model  in  the 
two statutes at issue here.  The Federal Trade Commission 
Act provided that “the findings of the commission as to the 
facts,  if  supported  by  testimony,  shall  in  like  manner  be
conclusive”  in  federal  court.
  38  Stat.  720  (codified,  as 
amended, at 15 U. S. C. §45(c)).  The Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 likewise provided that the SEC’s findings “shall