Document: 421 U.S. 35 95 S.Ct. 1456. 43 L.Ed.2d 712 Harold WITHROW et al., etc., Appellants,v.Duane LARKIN. No. 73—1573. Argued Dec. 18, 1974. Decided April 16, 1975. Syllabus Wisconsin statutes prohibit various acts of professional misconduct by physicians and empower a State Examining Board to warn reprimand physicians, temporarily suspend licenses, institute criminal action or revoke license. When the notified appellee licensed physician that closed investigative hearing, which his attorney could attend, would be held determine whether had engaged in certain proscribed acts, brought an against appellant members seeking injunctive relief temporary restraining order hearing on ground were unconstitutional appellants' with respect violated constitutional rights. The District Court denied order, proceeded after testimony 'contested hearing' at license suspended. court then granted appellee's motion for contested substantial federal due process question arisen. complied did not proceed but instead final session made 'findings fact' conduct 'conclusions law' there was probable cause believe he provisions. Subsequently, three-judge declared statute empowering physician's without formal proceedings preliminarily enjoined from enforcing it denial board 'at its own charges evolving investigation.' After appellants appealed this decision modified judgment so as withdraw declaration unconstitutionality enjoin enforcement only, stating suffer irreparable injury if applied him challenge constitutionality high likelihood success. Held: 1. court's initial should have erroneously applying all licensees. Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 310, 60 517, 84 L.Ed. 774. P. 43. 2. While vacate remand fuller emendation Court's findings, conclusions, justified view their lack specificity, such action, under circumstances, add anything essential determination merits costly procedure emphasize points already recognized parties well Court. Pp. 44-46. 3. erred when restrained Board's appellee, since record is quite unlikely ultimately prevail issue. 46-55. (a) combination adjudicative functions does not, more, constitute violation creating risk bias. 46-54. (b) Here processes utilized do themselves contain unacceptable bias, since, although been public, permitted present throughout fact attend hearings knew facts presented Board; moreover, no specific foundation has suspecting prejudiced investigation disabled deciding basis evidence mere exposure nonadversary procedures being insufficient itself impugn fairness later adversary hearing. 4. Board, prevented going forward issue findings conclusions law prohibited show prejudice prejudgment, stayed within accepted bounds issuing investigation. charge ultimate adjudication different bases purposes, same agency makes them tandem they relate issues result procedural violation. 55-58. Reversed remanded. See 368 F.Supp. 796. Betty R. Brown, Madison, Wis., appellants. Robert H. Friebert, Milwaukee, appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 forbid practice medicine composed practicing physicians. also define misconduct, proscribe fee splitting, make illegal any name other than issued public misled, unfair competition another physician, detriment profession result. To enforce these provisions, empowered Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 448.17 448.18 (1974) reprimand, license, 'to finds therefor revocation . ..'1 proceeding before commenced him, suit appellants, individual injunction statutes. preliminary injunction, appealed, we noted jurisdiction, 417 943, 94 3066, 41 664 (1974). 2 * Appellee, resident Michigan there, obtained August 1971 reciprocity agreement between governing medical licensing. His consisted performing abortions office Milwaukee. On June 20, 1973, sent notice hold July 12, § acts.2 attend. They however, cross-examine witnesses. Based upon decide 'whether exists statutes.' App. 14. 3 6, filed complaint 42 U.S.C. 1983 permanent preventing investigating conducting order. 4 moved dismiss complaint. day, amended sought again act dismiss. 30, submitted 5 12 13, 1973; numerous witnesses testified counsel proceedings. Appellee's subsequently informed wished, appear explain presented. 36—37. 6 September hearing'3 October 4, acts4 based adduced suspended Wis.Stat. 448.18(7). Appellee 1, 1973. Because purely aimed suspension appropriate, concluded arisen, namely, authority given both investigate (and) rule those impose punishment, least extent reprimanding suspending' request convening granted, denied. 793, 795—796 (ED Wis.1973). 7 go Instead, noticed attorney, appeared.5 thereupon 'Findings Fact,' 'Conclusions Law,' 'Decision' found specified statute. operative portion following: 8 'Within meaning sec. 448.17, Stats., hereby determined licensee provisions ch. 448, engaging unprofessional conduct. 9 'Therefore, secretary verify document file verified Attorney Milwaukee County accordance 448.18(2), purpose initiating Duane Larkin, M.D., surgery appropriate actions laws relating medicine.' 59—60. 10 November 19, (with following December 21, 1973) 448.18(7) guarantees it. Its holding was: 11 '(F)or Dr. Larkin's rights process. Insofar authorizes wherein stands lose liberty property, absent intervention independent, neutral detached maker, unenforceable.' 796, 797 (E.D.Wis.1973). Judgment entered January 31, 1974, 'Ordered Adjudged 448.18(7), Wis.Stats., defendants are until further utilizing Wis.Stats.' 13 Appellants took appeal decision, jurisdiction 10, 25, Court, suggestion joined crossmotion only. statute's success.6 II 14 correctly assert conflicted 774 (1940), state district plaintiff protect interests during ensuing litigation. 'The (the Court) showing raised serious questions, Constitution disclosed act, pending inflict damages complainants.' Id., 316, S.Ct., 520. section licensee. 15 eliminate application only appellee.7 Since longer forbidden apply persons, case effectively settled. 16 We inappropriate extended treatment contentions failed required Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 52(a), include granting reasons issuance Rule 65(d).8 deficient respect, what said contained prior opinion9—that 'challenge success.'10 Cf. Brown Chote, 411 452, 456, 93 1732, 36 420 (1973). specificity,11 doubt circumstances here, merits. turned sequence followed factual peculiar case. 28 1253,12 juncture III 17 framed issue, addressed 'for process.' F.Supp., 797.13 initially answered affirmatively, asserted probability question. stated 'state examining (did) qualify (an independent) decisionmaker (and not) properly regard investigated and, case, attorney.' 798. disagree. record, abuse discretion injunction. 18 Concededly, 'fair trial fair tribunal basic requirement In re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, 99 942 (1955). This applies administrative agencies adjudicate courts. Gibson Berryhill, 564, 579, 1689, 1698, 488 Not biased constitutionally 'our system always endeavored prevent even unfairness.' supra, U.S., 625; cf. Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 532, 47 437, 444, 71 749 (1927). pursuit end, situations identified experience teaches actual bias part judge too tolerable. Among cases adjudicator pecuniary interest outcome14 target personal criticism party him.15 19 contention necessarily creates much more difficult burden persuasion carry. It must overcome presumption honesty integrity serving adjudicators; convince that, realistic appraisal psychological tendencies human weakness, conferring powers individuals poses prejudgment guarantee adequately implemented. 20 Very similarly claims squarely rejected decisions FTC Cement Institute, 333 683, 68 92 1010 (1948), Federal Trade Commission instituted concerning respondents' multiple basing-point delivered-price system. demanded disqualify because long reported Congress President, congressional committees legality pricing At some illegal. here confronted 'on assumption formed entire membership official investigations.' 700, 803. claim saying: 21 '(T)he entertained views ex parte investigations mean minds irrevocably subject basing point practices. Here, contrast Commission's investigations, cement industry legally authorized participants hearings. produced evidence—volumes free out testimony, cross-examination witnesses, arguments, conditions trade practices attack thought kept range permissible business activities.' 701, 22 response argument, asserted: 23 'No require us sit expressed types law. fact, judges frequently try once identical each time, involve questions fact. Certainly, cannot possibly stronger compulsions court.' 702—703, 804 (footnote omitted). 24 ruled examiner who recommended rejecting probative disqualified preside reviewing courts excluded. NLRB Donnelly Garment 330 219, 236—237, 67 756, 765, 91 854 (1947). Appeals decided 'issues may prejudged ..' 151 F.2d 854, 870 (CA8 1945). But unanimously reversed, 25 'Certainly judicial administration statutory requirements apart sitting retrial reversed earlier rulings. find warrant imposing stiffer rule, whereby examiners disentitled strongly first hearing.' 765. 26 More recently sustained objection Social Security responsibility developing making disability claims, observed 'assumes bring down many designed, working well, governmental structure great growing complexity.' Richardson Perales, 402 389, 410, 1420, 1432, 842 (1971).16 27 That say nothing argument adjudicate. substantial, new, legislators others concerned operations attention distinctive performed persons. No single answer reached. Indeed, growth, variety, complexity one solution highly unlikely. Within Government itself, several ways, providing varying degrees separation complete virtually none all.17 For generality agencies, content Administrative Procedure Act, 554(d), provides employee prosecuting participate advise adjudicating function, expressly exempts prohibition 'the member body comprising agency.'18 surprising, therefore, '(t)he law, state, generally rejects idea (of) judging K. Davis, Administra Law Treatise 13.02, p. 175 (1958). Similarly, our cases, reflect substance problem, offer support bald proposition adjudicating. incredible variety mechanisms country will yield organizing principle. 29 relies heavily judge, 'one-man grand jury' compel testify secret about possible crimes, charged two contempt, prejury refusing himself tried convicted them. effect became prosecution assumed position, passing guilt innocence, very likely relied 'his personl knowledge impression occurred jury room,' 'could tested adequate cross-examination.' 138, 626.19 30 Plainly enough, Murchison understood stand broad facts, proceedings, necessary adjudications. purport Institute Act lay general principle whom alleged contempt committed over contrary. Ungar Sarafite, 376 575, 584—585, 841, 846 847, 921 (1964); Nilva United States, 352 385, 395—396, 77 431, 437—438, 415 (1957). 31 Nor comes strictures Murchison.20 procedures, occurred. Later noticing violations Without doubt, anticipated eventuate issue; inhered now adjudicate.21 Of course, alert possibilities lurk way particular actually work practice. throughout; attended Board.22 projudiced contrary, administrators 'are men conscience intellectual discipline, capable controversy fairly circumstances.' States Morgan, 313 409, 421, 61 999, 1004, 85 1429 (1941). 32 view, error untenable proceed. IV 33 think situation substantially asserting statutes.23 These Although aspect it, stresses attempting prejudgment. persuaded. 34 Judges repeatedly arrest warrants crime person named where sufficient defendant trial. Neither pretrial involvements raise barrier judge's presiding jury, innocence. assessed denying typical receive results approve filing complaints instituting mode violate law.24 remember contrary allow confront second time around. 804; 236 237, Having investigated, commission concluding considered intolerably sufficiently possibility adjudicators psychologically wedded consciously unconsciously avoid appearance having changed position. just logical inconsistency finding acquittal proceeding, incompatibility subsequent in, suspended, implicitly admitting cause. position most probably merely benefit afforded 37 purposes. Clearly, derived nonadversarial practical legal matter foreclosed effective consideration leading raised. case.25 38 violation, preclude determining special unfairness high. Findings kind insights into local realities entitled injunctions resting factors accompanied minimum Rules 52(a) 65(d).26 39 remanded consistent opinion. 40 So ordered. shall attempt medicine, surgery, osteopathy, treating sick term 'treat sick' defined s. 445.01(1)(a), certificate registration board, except otherwise specifically provided statute.' 448.02(1). investigate, hear persons 488.06, inimical health. power practice, statute, aid thereof.' 448.17. 'A holder placed probation period exceed months known good sub. (1). registration, place probation, consecutive 3-month periods. All subsection review 227.' Section 448.18(1)(g) prohibits 'engaging unbecoming detrimental best public.' Fee splitting 448.23(1). 448.02(4) regulates use licensed. maintains defenses him. Brief 28—29, n. 13. indicated health, Apart biased, contended full proceeding. 227.07—227.21. Daly Natural Resources Wis.2d 208, 218, 208 N.W.2d 839, 844 (1973), cert. denied, 414 1137, 883, 763 (1974); Margoles Medical Examiners, 499, 508 511, 177 353, 358—359 (1970). any, practiced Christian surname originally registered operated unfairly compete practitioner, mislead identity, particularly, 1971, Glen Johnson.' 'determine 448.02(1), particularly Young Wahn Ahn, unlicensed perform abortion clinic year 1972.' Finally split fees years 1972, 1973 448.23(1).' 45—46. unsuccessfully Record Appeal, Entry 21. reads follows: 'IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED plaintiff, grounds plaintiff's success.' Suggestion Mootness Alternative Motion Reconsider Dismiss Affirm 21—22. supra. contend addition particularity Fed.Rule 7(b), went beyond challenged Board. Our leads conclusion whatever deficiencies might had, reversal giving relief. 23. offered based. turns complicated issues, success irreparably injured If correct premise offenses involved, irrational, disturb 577 1697, Finally, agree entirely refrained interfering 575—577, 1696 1697. 'In addition, requests recite previously included memorandum court. conclude taken.' 19. Schmidt Lessard, 473, 476—477, 713, 715, 661 Gunn University Committee, 399 383, 388—389, 90 2013, 2016, 2017, 684 'Except Law, Supreme denying, interlocutory civil heard three judges.' Under 2281 2284, entering includes 'a success' (1973); Goldstein Cox, 396 471, 671, 663 (1970); (1940). altered procedures. assigns new investigation, remainder contact Affidavit John W. Rupel, 7. change, designed accommodate affect 1698; Ward Village Monroeville, 409 57, 80, 267 (1972); Commonwealth Coatings Corp. Continental Casualty 393 145, 89 337, 301 (1968). Taylor Hayes, 418 488, 501—503, 2697, 2704—2705, 897 Mayberry Pennsylvania, 400 455, 532 (1971); Pickering Education, 391 563, 578—579, 2, 88 1731, 1739 1740, 811 584, 846, (1964). Courts touching arising instructive. Pangburn CAB, 311 (CA1 1962), Civil Aeronautics accident report pilot involved airline transport rating claimed right impartial examiner's crash. permissible: '(W)e complex indeed taken enough inhibition pass required. Particularly instant resulted Congressional mandate air accidents.' 358. Duffield Charleston Area Center, Inc., 503 512 (CA4 1974); Kennecott Copper FTC, 467 67, 79—80 (CA10 1972), 416 909, 1617, 114 Intercontinental Industries American Stock Exchange, 452 935 (CA5 1971), 842, 41, 81 Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 338, 404 1308, 1315 (1968); Skelly Oil Co. FPC, 375 17—18 1967), nom. Permian Basin Rate Cases, 390 747, 1344, 312 Safeway Stores, Inc. 366 795, 801—802 (CA9 1966), 386 932, 87 954, 805 (1967); A. Holman SEC, 446, 452—453 (CA2 389 991, 482 SEC 116 279, 323 284, 350, 274 (1963). Those characterized litigation, need validity. Cyanimid 363 757 (CA6 commissioners served actively Senate subcommittee consideration. Texaco, 118 366, 336 754 (1964), vacated grounds, 381 739, 1798, 714 (1965), speech commissioner clearly reached matters Commission. 138 152, 158—161, 425 583, 589—592 Amos Treat 113 100, 306 260 (1962), Securities Exchange participated Trans World Airlines 102 391, 254 (1958), signed brief behalf assuming King Caesar Rodney School District, 380 1112 (Del.1974). state-court dealing similar see Koelling Trustees, 259 Iowa 1185, 146 284 (1966); rel. Yuhas 135 Mont. 381, 339 P.2d 981 (1959); Examiners Steward, 203 Md. 574, A.2d 248 (1954). LeBow Optometry 52 569, 191 47, 50 Kachian 44 170 743, (1969). 13.04 (1958); 11.14 (1970 Supp.). pertinent part: 'An agent performance factually related pursuant 557 title, witness apply— '(A) applications licenses; '(B) involving validity rates, facilities, utilities carriers; '(C) agency.' 13.06—13.07. statements 1740. unlike one, trier victim appellant's prosecutor securing dismissal.' Ibid. event, analyze combining answering 579 17, 1698. 9, gathering assistant upholding functions, true, organized internally minimize risks adjudication, including relying fully confrontation. officials harassed litigation abortions. 8—9. He complained 'about notoriety 'secret' (Board) proceedings.' 8. allegations, provide opportunity 'explain' 37. 41-42. negotiating settlements, testifying. What heads approving institution like ruling demurrers motions conducts prehearing conference presides harm, slight, goes impairment effectiveness mediation contamination judging. officers consult staff specialists testified, allowed testified; protection assurance meet considered.' 13.11, 249 Quite precedents considerations agency, rested Gagnon Scarpelli, 778, 1756, 656 Morrissey Brewer, 408 2593, 484 (1972). decisions, pose Each mandated, review. Gagnon, 785—786, 1761—1762; Morrissey, 485—486, 2602—2603; Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 271, 1011, 1022, 287 Allowing evaluate raises problems here. controlling statutes, called decisions. 798, little apparently deem transmittal third critical light 'local realities' is, give remand.

Category: 3