Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/35/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:43:06+00:00

Document:
statute were applied to him, and that his challenge to its constitutionality had a high likelihood of success.
1. The three-judge court's initial judgment should not have declared the statute unconstitutional and erroneously enjoined the Board from applying it against all licensees. Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U. S. 310. P. 43.
2. While a decision to vacate and remand for fuller emendation of the District Court's findings, conclusions, and judgment would be justified in view of their lack of specificity, such action, under the circumstances, would not add anything essential to the determination of the merits, and would be a costly procedure to emphasize points already made and recognized by the parties, as well as by the District Court. Pp. 421 U. S. 44-46.
(a) The combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not, without more, constitute a due process violation as creating an unconstitutional risk of bias. Pp. 421 U. S. 46-54.
(b) Here, the processes utilized by the Board do not in themselves contain an unacceptable risk of bias, since, although the investigative hearing had been closed to the public, appellee and his attorney were permitted to be present throughout, and, in fact, his attorney did attend the hearings, and knew the facts presented to the Board; moreover, no specific foundation has been presented for suspecting that the Board had been prejudiced by its investigation or would be disabled from hearing and deciding on the basis of the evidence to be presented at the contested hearing, the mere exposure to evidence presented in nonadversary investigative procedures being insufficient in itself to impugn the Board's fairness at a later adversary hearing. Pp. 421 U. S. 54-55.
bases and purposes, and the fact that the same agency makes them in tandem, and that they relate to the same issues, does not result in a procedural due process violation. Pp. 421 U. S. 55-58.
Reversed and remanded. See 368 F.Supp. 796.
Examining Board was commenced against him, appellee brought this suit against appellants, the individual members of the Board, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the statutes. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, the appellants appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 417 U.S. 943 (1974).
"whether to warn or reprimand if it finds such practice and whether to institute criminal action or action to revoke license if probable cause therefor exists under criminal or revocation statutes."
On July 6, 1973, appellee filed his complaint in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order preventing the Board from investigating him and from conducting the investigative hearing. The District Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.
On July 12, 1973, appellants moved to dismiss the complaint. On the same day, appellee filed an amended complaint in which injunctive relief was sought on the ground that Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 448.17 and 448.18 were unconstitutional and that appellants' acts with respect to him violated his constitutional rights. The District Court again denied appellee's motion for a temporary restraining order, but did not act upon appellants' motion to dismiss. On July 30, 1973, appellants submitted an amended motion to dismiss.
The Board proceeded with its investigative hearing on July 12 and 13, 1973; numerous witnesses testified and appellee's counsel was present throughout the proceedings. Appellee's counsel was subsequently informed that appellee could, if he wished, appear before the Board to explain any of the evidence which had been presented. App. 337.
"to investigate physicians and present charges [and] to rule on those charges and impose punishment, at least to the extent of reprimanding or temporarily suspending"
violated appellee's due process rights. Appellee's motion to request the convening of a three-judge court was also granted, and appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. 368 F.Supp. 793, 795-796 (ED Wis.1973).
"Within the meaning of sec. 448.17, Stats., it is hereby determined that there is probable cause to believe that licensee has violated the criminal provisions of ch. 448, Stats., and that there is probable cause for an action to revoke the license of the licensee for engaging in unprofessional conduct. "
"Therefore, it is the decision of this Board that the secretary verify this document and file it as a verified complaint with the District Attorney of Milwaukee County in accordance with sec. 448.18(2), Stats., for the purpose of initiating an action to revoke the license of Duane R. Larkin, M.D., to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Wisconsin and initiating appropriate actions for violation of the criminal laws relating to the practice of medicine."
"[F]or the board temporarily to suspend Dr. Larkin's license at its own contested hearing on charges evolving from its own investigation would constitute a denial to him of his rights to procedural due process. Insofar as § 448.18(7) authorizes a procedure wherein a physician stands to lose his liberty or property, absent the intervention of an independent, neutral and detached decisionmaker, we concluded that it was unconstitutional and unenforceable."
"Ordered and Adjudged that § 448.18(7), Wis.Stats., is unconstitutional, and that the defendants are preliminarily enjoined until further notice from utilizing the provisions of § 448.18(7), Wis.Stats."
Appellants correctly assert that the District Court's initial judgment conflicted with this Court's holding in Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U. S. 310 (1940), that a state statute should not be declared unconstitutional by a district court if a preliminary injunction is granted a plaintiff to protect his interests during the ensuing litigation.
"The question before [the District Court] was not whether the act was constitutional or unconstitutional . . . , but was whether the showing made raised serious questions, under the federal Constitution . . . and disclosed that enforcement of the act, pending final hearing, would inflict irreparable damages upon the complainants."
Id. at 309 U. S. 316. The January 31, 1974, judgment should not have declared § 448.18(7) unconstitutional, and it erroneously enjoined the Board from utilizing the section against any licensee.
and to enjoin application of the statute only as against appellee. [Footnote 7] Since appellants are no longer forbidden to apply the statutes to other persons, this issue in the case has been effectively settled.
remand at this juncture would be a costly procedure to emphasize points that have already been made and recognized by both parties as well as by the District Court.
"for the board temporarily to suspend Dr. Larkin's license at its own contested hearing on charges evolving from its own investigation would constitute a denial to him of his rights to procedural due process."
"state medical examining board [did] not qualify as [an independent] decisionmaker, [and could not] properly rule with regard to the merits of the same charges it investigated and, as in this case, presented to the district attorney."
Id. at 798. We disagree. On the present record, it is quite unlikely that appellee would ultimately prevail on the merits of the due process issue presented to the District Court, and it was an abuse of discretion to issue the preliminary injunction.
"on the assumption that such an opinion ha been formed by the entire membership of the Commission as a result of its prior official investigations."
Id. at 333 U. S. 700.
"[T]he fact that the Commission had entertained such views as the result of its prior ex parte investigations did not necessarily mean that the minds of its members were irrevocably closed on the subject of the respondents' basing point practices. Here, in contrast to the Commission's investigations, members of the cement industry were legally authorized participants in the hearings. They produced evidence -- volumes of it. They were free to point out to the Commission by testimony, by cross-examination of witnesses, and by arguments, conditions of the trade practices under attack which they thought kept these practices within the range of legally permissible business activities."
an opinion as to whether certain types of conduct were prohibited by law. In fact, judges frequently try the same case more than once, and decide identical issues each time, although these issues involve questions both of law and fact. Certainly, the Federal Trade Commission cannot possibly be under stronger constitutional compulsions in this respect than a court."
Id. at 333 U. S. 702-703 (footnote omitted).
"Certainly it is not the rule of judicial administration that, statutory requirements apart . . . , a judge is disqualified from sitting in a retrial because he was reversed on earlier rulings. We find no warrant for imposing upon administrative agencies a stiffer rule, whereby examiners would be disentitled to sit because they ruled strongly against a party in the first hearing."
330 U.S. at 330 U. S. 236-237.
and working well, for a governmental structure of great and growing complexity."
"[t]he case law, both federal and state, generally rejects the idea that the combination [of] judging [and] investigating functions is a denial of due process. . . ."
2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 13.02, p. 175 (1958). Similarly, our cases, although they reflect the substance of the problem, offer no support for the bald proposition applied in this case by the District Court that agency members who participate in an investigation are disqualified from adjudicating. The incredible variety of administrative mechanisms in this country will not yield to any single organizing principle.
Plainly enough, Murchison has not been understood to stand for the broad rule that the members of an administrative agency may not investigate the facts, institute proceedings, and then make the necessary adjudications. The Court did not purport to question the Cement Institute case, supra, or the Administrative Procedure Act, and did not lay down any general principle that a judge before whom an alleged contempt is committed may not bring and preside over the ensuing contempt proceedings. The accepted rule is to the contrary.
"are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances."
United States v. Morgan, 313 U. S. 409, 313 U. S. 421 (1941).
We are of the view, therefore, that the District Court was in error when it entered the restraining order against the Board's contested hearing and when it granted the preliminary injunction based on the untenable view that it would be unconstitutional for the Board to suspend appellee's license "at its own contested hearing on charges evolving from its own investigation. . . ." The contested hearing should have been permitted to proceed.
appellee had engaged in various acts prohibited by the Wisconsin statutes. [Footnote 23] These findings and conclusions were verified and filed with the district attorney for the purpose of initiating revocation and criminal proceedings. Although the District Court did not emphasize this aspect of the case before it, appellee stresses it in attempting to show prejudice and prejudgment. We are not persuaded.
should also remember that it is not contrary to due process to allow judges and administrators who have had their initial decisions reversed on appeal to confront and decide the same questions a second time around. See Cement Institute, 333 U.S. at 333 U. S. 702-703; Donnelly Garment Co., 330 U.S. at 330 U. S. 236-237.
Here, the Board stayed within the accepted bounds of due process. Having investigated, it issued findings and conclusions asserting the commission of certain acts, and ultimately concluding that there was probable cause to believe that appellee had violated the statutes.
of a more complete view of the evidence afforded by an adversary hearing.
"No person shall practice or attempt or hold himself out as authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or osteopathy, or any other system of treating the sick as the term 'treat the sick' is defined in s. 445.01(1)(a), without a license or certificate of registration from the examining board, except as otherwise specifically provided by statute."
"The examining board shall investigate, hear and act upon practices by persons licensed to practice medicine and surgery under s. 488.06, that are inimical to the public health. The examining board shall have the power to warn and to reprimand, when it finds such practice, and to institute criminal action or action to revoke license when it finds probable cause therefor under criminal or revocation statute, and the attorney general may aid the district attorney in the prosecution thereof."
"A license or certificate of registration may be temporarily suspended by the examining board, without formal proceedings, and its holder placed on probation for a period not to exceed 3 months where he is known or the examining board has good cause to believe that such holder has violated sub.(1). The examining board shall not have authority to suspend a license or certificate of registration, or to place a holder on probation, for more than 2 consecutive 3-month periods. All examining board actions under this subsection shall be subject to review under ch. 227."
Section 448.18(1)(g) prohibits "engaging in conduct unbecoming a person licensed to practice or detrimental to the best interests of the public." Fee splitting is proscribed by § 448.23 (1). Section 448.02(4) regulates the use of a name by a physician in his practice other than the name under which he was licensed.
Appellee maintains that he has legal and factual defenses to all charges made against him. Brief for Appellee 28-29, n. 13.
"to determine whether the licensee has engaged in practices that are inimical to the public health, whether he has engaged in conduct unbecoming a person licensed to practice medicine, and whether he has engaged in conduct detrimental to the best interests of the public."
Apart from his claim that the tribunal at the contested hearing would be biased, appellee has not contended that that hearing would not be a full adversary proceeding. See Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 227.07-227.21. See also Daly v. Natural Resources Board, 60 Wis.2d 208, 218, 208 N.W.2d 839, 844 (1973), cert.denied, 414 U.S. 1137 (1974); Maroles v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 47 Wis.2d 499, 508-511, 177 N.W.2d 353, 358-359 (1970). No issue has been raised concerning the circumstances, if any, in which the Board could suspend a license without first holding an adversary hearing.
"to determine whether the licensee has practiced medicine in the State of Wisconsin under any other Christian or given name or any other surname than that, under which he was originally licensed or registered to practice medicine in this state, which practicing has operated to unfairly compete with another practitioner, to mislead the public as to identity, or to otherwise result in detriment to the profession or the public, and more particularly, whether the said Duane Larkin, M.D., has practiced medicine in this state since September 1, 1971, under the name of Glen Johnson."
"determine whether the licensee has permitted persons to practice medicine in this state in violation of sec. 448.02(1), Stat., more particularly, whether the said Duane Larkin, M.D., permitted Young Wahn Ahn, M.D., an unlicensed physician, to perform abortions at his abortion clinic during the year 1972."
"determine whether the said Duane Larkin, M.D., split fees with other persons during the years 1971, 1972, and 1973 in violation of sec. 448.23(1)."
Appellee unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order against this hearing. See Record on Appeal, Entry 21.
"IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants are preliminarily enjoined until further notice from utilizing the provisions of § 448.18(7), Wis.Stats., against the plaintiff, Duane Larkin, M.D., on the grounds that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if said statute were to the applied against him, and that the plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of said statute has a high likelihood of success."
Suggestion of Mootness or in the Alternative Motion to Reconsider Appellee's Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 21-22.
Appellants contend in addition that appellee's motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief did not state with particularity the grounds for such relief, as required by Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 7(b), and that the motion went beyond the subject matter of the action, since the amended complaint challenged only the conducting of the ex parte investigative hearing by the Board. Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that whatever deficiencies appellee's motion might have had, they are insufficient to require reversal of the District Court decision giving injunctive relief. We also find that the motion was within the subject matter of the case as defined by the amended complaint. See App. 23.
Appellants also contend that appellee offered no evidence upon which injunctive relief could be based. This case, however, turns upon questions of law and not upon complicated factual issues, and the District Court has found both that appellee's challenge to § 448.18(7) has a high likelihood of success on the merits, and that appellee would be irreparably injured absent injunctive relief. If the District Court is correct in its constitutional premise that an agency which has investigated possible offenses cannot fairly adjudicate the legal and factual issues involved, then its conclusion that appellee would suffer irreparable injury by having his license temporarily suspended by such an agency is not irrational, and we will not disturb it. Cf. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 411 U. S. 577 n. 16 (1973).
Finally, we do not agree with appellants' contention that the District Court should have entirely refrained from deciding the merits of this case and from interfering with the state administrative proceeding. Id. at 411 U. S. 575-577.
"In addition, the plaintiff requests that the modified judgment should recite specific grounds not previously included in the judgment but contained in the earlier memorandum decision of this court. . . . We conclude that the plaintiff's position is well taken."
See Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U. S. 473, 414 U. S. 476-477 (1974); Gunn v. University Committee, 399 U. S. 383, 399 U. S. 388-389 (1970).
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, a three-judge district court is required for entering a preliminary or permanent injunction against the enforcement of a state statute on the grounds of the unconstitutionality of the law. That requirement includes preliminary injunctions against enforcement of state statutes based on "a high likelihood of success" of the constitutional challenge to the statutes. See Brown v. Chote, 411 U. S. 452 (1973); Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U. S. 471 (1970); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U. S. 310 (1940).
After the District Court made its decision, the Board altered its procedures. It now assigns each new case to one of the members for investigation, and the remainder of the Board has no contact with the investigative process. Affidavit of John W. Rupel, M.D., Suggestion of Mootness or in the Alternative Motion to Reconsider Appellee's Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 7. That change, designed to accommodate the Board's procedures to the District Court's decision, does not affect this case.
Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 579; Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 (1972); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927). Cf. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U. S. 145 (1968).
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488, 418 U. S. 501-503 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455 (1971); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 391 U. S. 578-579, n. 2 (1968). Cf. Ungar v. Sarate, 376 U. S. 575, 376 U. S. 584 (1964).
"[W]e cannot say that the mere fact that a tribunal has had contact with a particular factual complex in a prior hearing, or indeed has taken a public position on the facts, is enough to place that tribunal under a constitutional inhibition to pass upon the facts in a subsequent hearing. We believe that more is required. Particularly is this so in the instant case, where the Board's prior contact with the case resulted from its following the Congressional mandate to investigate and report the probable cause of all civil air accidents."
Those cases in which due process violations have been found are characterized by factors not present in the record before us in this litigation, and we need not pass upon their validity. In American Cyanimid Co. v. FTC, 363 F.2d 757 (CA6 1966), one of the commissioners had previously served actively as counsel for a Senate subcommittee investigating many of the same facts and issues before the Federal Trade Commission for consideration. In Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 336 F.2d 754 (1964), vacated on other grounds, 381 U. S. 739 (1965), the court found that a speech made by a commissioner clearly indicated that he had already to some extent reached a decision as to matters pending before that Commission. See also Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 158-161, 425 F.2d 583, 589-592 (1970). Amos Treat & Co. v. SEC, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 306 F.2d 260 (1962), presented a situation in which one of the members of the Securities and Exchange Commission had previously participated as an employee in the investigation of charges pending before the Commission. In Trans World Airlines v. CAB, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 254 F.2d 90 (1958), a Civil Aeronautics Board member had signed a brief in behalf of one of the parties in the proceedings prior to assuming membership on the Board. See also King v. Caesar Rodney School District, 380 F.Supp. 1112 (Del.1974).
For state court decisions dealing with issues similar to those involved in this case, see Koelling v. Board of Trustees, 259 Iowa 1185, 146 N.W.2d 284 (1966); State v. Board of Medical Examiners, 135 Mont. 381, 339 P.2d 981 (1959); Board of Medical Examiners v. Steward, 203 Md. 574, 102 A.2d 248 (1954). See also LeBow v. Optometry Examining Board, 52 Wis.2d 569, 575, 191 N.W.2d 47, 50 (1971); Kachian v. Optometry Examining Board, 44 Wis.2d 1, 13, 170 N.W.2d 743, 749 (1969).
See 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 13.04 (1958); K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 11.14 (1970 Supp.).
"An employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency in a case may not, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency review pursuant to section 557 of this title, except as witness or counsel in public proceedings. This subsection does not apply -- "
"(A) in determining applications for initial licenses;"
"(B) to proceedings involving the validity or application of rates, facilities, or practices of public utilities or carriers; or"
"(C) to the agency or a member or members of the body comprising the agency."
See also 2 K. Davis, supra, §§ 13.06-13.07.
"the trier of fact was the same body that was also both the victim of appellant's statements and the prosecutor that brought the charges aimed at securing his dismissal."
Ibid. In any event, the Court did not analyze the question raised by this case, because the appellant in Pickering had not raised a due process contention in the state proceedings.
The question of the constitutionality of combining in one agency both investigative and adjudicative functions in the same proceeding was raised, but did not require answering, in Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 579 n. 17.
It is asserted by appellants, Brief for Appellants 25 n. 9, and not denied by appellee, that an agency employee performed the actual investigation and gathering of evidence in this case, and that an assistant attorney general then presented the evidence to the Board at the investigative hearings. While not essential to our decision upholding the constitutionality of the Board's sequence of functions, these facts, if true, show that the Board had organized itself internally to minimize the risks arising from combining investigation and adjudication, including the possibility of Board members relying at later suspension hearings upon evidence not then fully subject to effective confrontation.
Appellee does claim that state officials harassed him with litigation because he performed abortions. Brief for Appellee 8-9. He also has complained "about the notoriety of his case during the secret' [Board] proceedings." Id. at 20 n. 8. The District Court made no findings with respect to these allegations, and the record does not provide a basis for finding, as an initial matter here, that there was evidence of actual bias or prejudgment on the part of appellants.
After the initial investigative hearing, appellee was also given the opportunity to appear before the Board to "explain" the evidence that had been presented to it. App. 37.
See supra at 421 U. S. 41-42.
"The Act does not, and probably should, not forbid the combination with judging of instituting proceedings, negotiating settlements, or testifying. What heads of agencies do in approving the institution of proceedings is much like what judges do in ruling on demurrers or motions to dismiss. When the same examiner conducts a prehearing conference and then presides at the hearing, the harm, if any, is slight, and it probably goes more to impairment of effectiveness in mediation than to contamination of judging. If deciding officers may consult staff specialists who have not testified, they should be allowed to consult those who have testified; the need here is not for protection against contamination, but is assurance of appropriate opportunity to meet what is considered."
2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 13.11, p. 249 (1958).
Quite apart from precedents and considerations concerning the constitutionality of a combination of functions in one agency, the District Court rested its decision upon Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972). These decisions, however, pose a very different question. Each held that, when review of an initial decision is mandated the decisionmaker must be other than the one who made the decision under review. Gagnon, supra at 411 U. S. 785-786; Morrissey, supra, at 408 U. S. 485-486; see also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 397 U. S. 271 (1970). Allowing a decisionmaker to review and evaluate his own prior decisions raises problems that are not present here. Under the controlling statutes, the Board is at no point called upon to review its own prior decisions.
The District Court noted that the Board had presented its findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district attorney for the purpose of initiating any appropriate revocation or criminal proceedings, 368 F.Supp. at 798, but made little of it, and apparently did not deem the transmittal to a third party critical in light of "local realities." See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 579. The District Court is, of course, free to give further attention to this issue upon remand.

References: v. 
 § 1983
 § 448
 § 448
 § 448
 v. 
 § 448
 § 13
 v. 
 § 448
 v. 
 v. 
 § 448
 § 448
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 § 11
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.