Document: 362 U.S. 73 80 S.Ct. 568 4 L.Ed.2d FLORIDA LIME AND AVOCADO GROWERS, INC., et al., Appellants,v.JACOBSEN, Director of the Department Agriculture State California, al. No. 49. Argued Dec. 9, 10, 1959. Decided March 7, 1960. Mr. Isaac E. Ferguson, North Hollywood, Cal., for appellants. John Fourt, Sacramento, appellees. Justice WHITTAKER delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellants, engaged in business growing, packing, and marketing commerce, Florida avocados, brought this action District Court United States Northern California to enjoin respondents, state officers from enforcing § 792 Agricultural Code.1 2 Section prohibits, among other things, importation into or sale avocados containing 'less than 8 per cent oil, by weight avocado excluding skin seed.' The complaint alleged, inter alia, that varieties grown do not normally, at least uniformly, contain maturity as much 8% oil weight; each year since 1954 appellants have shipped interstate full compliance with Federal Marketing Agreement Act 19372 Avocado Order 69 issued under Secretary on June 11, 1954, attempted sell them there; appellees, their agents, consistently barred appellants' failure uniformly less weight, resulting denial access market, forcing reshipment States, injury appellants, all violation Commerce Equal Protection Clauses Constitution, art. 1, 8, cl. 3; Amend. 14, well 1937 thereunder. 3 Inasmuch alleged federal unconstitutionality statute, requested convening of, there was convened, a three-judge pursuant 28 U.S.C. 2281, U.S.C.A. hear case. After hearing, court concluded that, because had contested validity nor sought abatement condemnation courts, case presented 'no more mere prospect interference posed bare existence law question,' it authority take jurisdiction (and was) left no course dismiss action,' which did. D.C., 169 F.Supp. 774, 776. Appellants here direct appeal 1253, we postponed question our hearing merits. 360 915, 79 1432, 1532. first principal is whether one required 2281 be heard three judges and, hence, 1253. 5 provides3 an injunction restraining enforcement statute may granted upon ground such 'unless application therefor determined district * *,' 1253 provides4 any order, granting denying civil Congress judges, appealed directly 6 Appellees concede if attacked solely conflict would been judges. But appellees contend also attacks Secretary's 69, possible could statutory rather constitutional ground, therefore, does lie 7 seems plainly indicate congressional intention require grounds unconstitutionality. reason quite clear. impetus behind decision Ex parte Young, 1908, 209 123, 441, 52 L.Ed. 714, held officer unconstitutional, despite prohibition Eleventh Amendment concerning suits against State. Debate immediately launched Senate regard cushioning impact Young case, concern being power thus activated judge operation legislation unconstitutionality.5 result debates subject passage three-judge-court 1910, 36 Stat. 557, codified 266 Judicial Code, 1162.6 This prohibited interlocutory unless contained its own provision order injunction. objective clearly articulated Chief Taft Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 260 212, 43 75, 67 217: 9 'The enacted manifest purpose taking away single Judge, Circuit holding issue execution administrative board statute. Pending injunction, grant force until application, but thereafter, so far enjoining officers, his exhausted. wording section leaves doubt provisions ex industria seeking make regularly execution, matter adequate deliberation presence whom should likely secure. It prevent improvident injunctions judge, unnecessary between always deprecated.' page 216, 76. 10 In 1925, amended issuance permanent 238 Code (a broad governing appeals Courts) amended, pertinent, incorporate orders courts 938. Such present scheme §§ 11 With background, entirely clear central 1910 And 1925 amendment requiring 'was designed end anomalous situation might reconsider decide questions already passed injunction.' Stratton St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 282 51 75 135. read light when, injunctive decree necessary; joining nonconstitutional attack along dispense necessity convene court. To hold contrary permit whenever defeat 2281. 12 Cases Louisville Nashville Garrett, 1913, 231 298, 34 48, 58 229, adhered view challenging substantial grounds, convened has just action—jurisdiction over claims raised statute.7 These cases represent unmistakable recognition policy provide enjoined unconstitutionality, consideration must controlling.8 13 place some reliance Buder, 271 461, 46 70 1036, Lemke Farmers Grain Embden, N.D., 258 50 (Lemke I), 42 244, 66 458, support position. Buder merely claim 266, here. did not, however, sole before I permissible Appeals final both unconstitutional decided 238, which, calling 'in involves construction Constitution constitution claimed contravention States.' breadth led several occasions construe mean only when involved, Union Planters' Bank Memphis City Memphis, 189 71, 73, 23 604, 605, 47 712; Carolina Glass South Carolina, 240 305, 318, 293, 60 658, based properly taken either Appeals. Spreckels Sugar Refining McClain, 192 397, 407—408, 24 376, 378 379, 48 496; Macfadden 213 288, 29 490, 491, 53 801. I, 1922, followed line decisions, way concerned court—the now us. 14 distinction scope appellate prior effectively illustrated differing events Homer Elevator 65 II), 250, 467. Both involved both, were granted. coming II, hand, As indicated, additional basis jurisdiction. II took issues See Shafer 268 189, 45 481, 909, virtually identical 15 problem greatly simplified while substantially reduce general jurisdiction, incorporated denied 266. We find these amendments curtail orders. Indeed, continued maintain substantial, appeal, E.g., Sterling Constantin, 287 378, 393—394, 190, 193—194, 77 375; Railroad Commission Pacific Gas Electric 302 388, 391, 334, 336, 82 319; Missouri Brashear Freight Lines, 312 621, 625, note 5, 61 784, 786, 85 1083. 16 ignore explicit language grounds. Where seeks then even though are think judges.' (Emphasis added.) We, appeal. 17 turn error appellees' 'existing dispute legal rights,' 'a (§ 792).' accordingly dismissing want (169 776) earlier stated, alleges made score shipments commerce effect condemned those appellants—to destruction complete loss shipments—to reship 1937. therefore evident existing parties rights amounting justiciable controversy entitled circumstances, fact contest seek courts—which, time period necessarily resulted spoilage product—does constitute impediment right violates 18 judgment reversed cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 19 Reversed remanded. 20 DOUGLAS joins part passes merits, having held, view, 21 FRANKFURTER, joins, dissenting. 22 providing Courts, Court, statutes 1910. 557. apply applications relief. Since like one, where non-constitutional Herkness Irion, 278 92, 49 40, 198; 393, 193, 375 (limited Phillips 246, 480, 800); Spielman Motor Sales Dodge, 295 89, 55 678, 1322; Parker Brown, 317 341, 63 307, 87 315.1 none cases, challenged litigants relief sought, notice score. feel free Marshall's approach similar unconsidered assumptions jurisdiction: 'No made, sub silentio, consider itself bound case.' More, Cranch 159, 172, 397. Marshall Durousseau 232, Brandeis dissenting King Mfg. Council Augusta, 277 100, 135, 21, 489, 501, 72 801: 'It settled exercise circumstances (where counsel jurisdiction) deemed precedent finally us determination.'2 open, thorough canvass relevant jurisdictional factors. undertake canvass, relies instead cited what deems manifested intent. Consideration me factors leads dissent Court's conclusion Appellants' 1937, 601 seq., Constitution. adjudicate claims. A after entered existed. 774. holds below decisions Courts 1253: 25 'Except otherwise provided law, party Supreme denying, action, suit proceeding 26 Whether 'proceeding judges,' within depends meaning given 2281: 27 'An enforcement, commission acting statutes, shall thereof 2284 title.' start proposition, understand do, appealable complaint, If review decision, determinable one. asserted instance requires purposes claim. 1036. required, consequent although joined dispose essentially perchance local exclusive immediate collision 30 Neither my position satisfactory. My leave open contains points out, superficial literal sense 'injunction UPON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY *.' court, corollary where, consequence relief, constitutionality will play There can expected many cases. For example see 198. fairly fully agree, devising relating appropriate safeguards invalidation am put choice procedure applicable large class unusual demands makes judicial system never thought justifiable Congress, departing strictly restrict preventing outside proper sphere. choose latter considerations controlling, namely, bearing efficient system. myself compelled disregard ironclad unambiguous evidence contrary. 31 What most comport best two conflicting considerations, respecting context situation. On hand gave rise creation requirement cases: protection regulatory achieved resting fate hands circuit (or, originally, Court), judge. Pogue, Determination Law, 41 Harv.L.Rev. 623; Hutcheson, Case Three Judges, 795. provided, usual route Appeals, avoid incongruity reviewing hasten ultimate determination delay waste during eventually valid restrained 32 Were claiming construing inert follow, concluded, precluded obvious specific provisions. rule fail give due countervailing farreaching consequences system, affecting functioning Specifically, trial dislocation normal structure lower particularly vast non-metropolitan regions; judgments expands obligatory contradicts dominant principle they gone through sieves, or, legislation, tribunal Also, adjudicated reaching desirability becomes operative. 33 deem judiciary importance seriously urged involves, certainly instance, making potentially available disposed of. important ordinary needlessly disrupted insure every out invocation constitutional, tending extended adherence confining consistent past refused legislation. Moore Fidelity Deposit 272 317, 105, 71 273; Smith Wilson, 273 385, 699; Collins, 565, 585, 990; Oklahoma Packing 292 386, 54 732, 78 1318; Williams, 267, 523, 877; National New York, 101, 43, 202; Rorick Board Commissioners Everglades Drainage Dist., 307 208, 59 808, 83 1242; Bransford, 310 354, 947, 84 1249; Wilentz Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., 306 573, 709, 994; 800; Stainback Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 368, 606, 93 741. stressed supra, procedural technicality embodiment broadly phrased social generous underlying purpose. refer 'the long-established strict construction' U.S., 612, Territory Hawaii. recognize today not—that giving effective totality, especially expansive increases thereby cross February 13, 936, primary aim keep docket narrow confines. 321, 106, 273. 35 dispute, cannot persuaded, apparently is, arguments stemming language,' sense, Jurisdictional isolation mutilating literalness, harmonizing parts comprehensive, reticulated express refusal surface 'sense thing' confer beyond 'naturally belongs it,' American Security Trust Columbia, 224 495, 553, 554, 56 856. 568, 586, 990, '(d)espite generality language' provision, restrain defendants matters interest particular municipality involved.' Reliance literalism constitutes slavish words, symbols single, absolute meanings, reflects indifference significance vehicle administration. Nor persuaded administration chiefly 'plainly indicate(s) unconstitutionality.' 76, 571. plain When applied injunctions. Jurisdiction remained Thus impossible attribute involving include was, agrees, 'to course, common knowledge Congress' enacting Thus, Acts face appears prohibit ever fair say deliberate accompanying achieve sweeping inflexible result. absence manifestations purpose, why does, harmony system.3 37 look guidance conferring relied reached without problems presented, Co 458. arose old literally 'claimed expressly considered, implicated ultimately turned 38 Legislating Congress. Applying oftener construction. That function. true mainly distribution deployment review. seldom concerns dramatic arouses interest. go illustration generalization legislative changes proposed other, Criminal 1907. Because things convinced wise show enactment device, kind attitude toward series totality wit, simpliciter offensive entangled claims, usually turning reached. Deering's 1950; c. 2, Div. West's Ann.California Code. seq. provides: dna Senator Overman commented follows: 'This measure proposes petition shall, call another who pass 'We think, sir, done allay intense feeling States. said Harlan, Minnesota (Ex Young), come sad day subordinate sovereign enforce laws legislature State, suspending so, great people tied manner charged causing almost revolution, feeling, substitute adopted inclined resist decrees courts. abide subordinante inferior simply tie *' Cong.Rec. 4847. Bacon Georgia remarked: bill throw around enormous powers stopping punishing let hastily, questions, dangerous man. very grave serious trouble exists—that machinery arrested. 4853. originally pertinent part: operation, justice thereof, same majority concur application. An 1162. See, e.g., Van Dyke Geary, 244 39, 483, 973; Cavanaugh Looney, 248 453, 39 142, 354; 467; Chicago, Great Western Kendall, 94, 55, 183; 909; 1083; 315. Garrett following observations Hughes: 'Because (District) authorized determine Federal. Siler R.R. 175, 191, 451, 753. govern preliminary authorizes applies 'unconstitutionality.' reference, undoubtedly, mut But, supposed compel exclusion separate motion respect determining propriety pending suit. arising brings here.' pages 303—304, 50. 375, example, certain violated Constitutions. Governor declared martial effort orders, purporting him considering Hughes said: 'As authorize Governor, challenged, constituted, extends enables rest 193. 800, interfering project using funds challenged. Constantin distinguished attempt main violative such, 'indubitably 266.' 253, 484. Prior extension cover injunctions, accepted 229; 909. Of attention whatsoever challenge whole made. fundamental discounting pre-1925 regarding Act, drastically shrunk one-judge broader including addition 378—379, results permitting permitted obviously believe today. Rules 15, subd. 1(c)(1) 23, 1(c), U.S.C.A., emphasize doctrine silentio controlling precedent: 'Only set forth statement (or petition) comprised therein considered court.' interesting (28 2282, 2282), room litigation attacking agents party) reviewed 1252, provides.

Category: 8