Opinion ID: 1118569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: failure to raise an unresolved constitutional challenge by appeal brought directly from an adverse administrative decision makes the agency order impervious to a later collateral attack on constitutional grounds

Text: Dow Jones [3] teaches that constitutional challenges lie outside the adjudicative competence of administrative agencies. Under pre- Dow Jones practice, it was clearly understood that on an agency's failure to consider a constitutional challenge, the aggrieved party had to appeal lest the decision become final. [4] Dow Jones does not disturb that time-honored rule of practice. An agency's want of competence to resolve a constitutional attack does not enable a party aggrieved by its decision to delay the challenge past a timely appeal. One may not wait beyond an agency order's finality to assert a claim of constitutional infirmity. City Vending did not appeal from the Commission's order; rather, it pressed the order's constitutional infirmity as a defense against the district court injunction. Since the assessment in contest is not facially void, [5] City Vending's failure timely to appeal makes that agency decision final and the interposed district court defense an impermissible collateral attack.