Document: 467 U.S. 340 104 S.Ct. 2450 81 L.Ed.2d 270 John R. BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Petitioners,v.COMMUNITY NUTRITION INSTITUTE al. No. 83-458. Supreme Court the United States Argued April 24, 1984. Decided June 4, Syllabus To bring destabilizing competition among dairy farmers under control, Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 1937 (Act) authorizes Agriculture (Secretary) to issue milk market orders setting minimum prices that handlers (those who process products) must pay producers (dairy farmers) for their products. Pursuant this authority, issued which are required "reconstituted milk" (milk manufactured by mixing powder with water) price Class II (raw used produce such products as dry powder) rather than higher covering I processed and bottled fluid consumption). The assume will use reconstituted manufacture surplus products, but any portion not so make a "compensatory payment" equal difference between product prices. Respondents—three individual consumers handler regulated orders, nonprofit organization—brought suit in Federal District Court, contending compensatory payment requirement makes uneconomical process. held, inter alia, had no standing challenge orders. Appeals disagreed, holding suffered injury-in-fact, injuries were redressable, they within zone interests protected Act, Act's structure purposes did reveal type "clear convincing evidence congressional intent needed overcome presumption favor judicial review." Held: may obtain review question. Pp. 24542458. (a) It is clear from Congress intended ordinarily be confined suits accordance provisions expressly entitling them federal district court after exhausting administrative remedies. Allowing sue would severely disrupt complex delicate scheme. 24542456. (b) favoring action does control cases one, where preclude consumer "fairly discernible" detail legislative contemplates cooperative venture Secretary, producers, handlers; participation provided or desired Stark v. Wickard, 321 288, 64 559, 88 L.Ed. 733, distinguished. 24562458. 225 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 698 F.2d 1239 (1983), reversed. Kathryn A. Oberly, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Ronald L. Plesser, respondents. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents question whether ultimate authority (Act), ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246, amended, 7 U.S.C. § 601 seq. We conclude 2 * 3 In early 1900's, engaged intense production See Zuber Allen, 396 168, 172176, 90 314, 317319, 24 345 (1969). 608c. "essential purpose [of order scheme is] raise producer prices," S.Rep. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., (1935), thereby ensure benefits burdens fairly proportionately shared all farmers. Nebbia New York, 291 502, 517518, 54 505, 507, 78 940 (1934). 4 Under established Congress, conduct an appropriate rulemaking proceeding before issuing order. public notified these proceedings opportunity hearing comment. 608c(3). An only if adduced at shows "that [it] tend effectuate declared policy chapter respect commodity." 608c(4). Moreover, become effective, it approved least 50% volume covered proposed two-thirds affected region. §§ 608c(8), 608c(5)(B)(i). If withhold consent, nevertheless impose But Secretary's power do conditioned upon consenting its promulgation his making determination "the practical means advancing producers." 608c(9)(B). 5 currently has some 45 effect. CFR pts. 10011139 (1984). Each covers different region country, collectively cover most, though all, States. divide into separately priced classes based on uses raw put. 44 Fed.Reg. 65990 (1979). Raw consumption termed "Class I" milk. butter, cheese, II" milk.1 6 For variety economic reasons, command perfectly functioning market. Accordingly, require discourage more desirable sales, also submit payments either class regional pool. Administrators pools then charged distributing weighted average each have produced, irrespective use. 608c(5)(B)(ii). particular, milk"—that is, water—since 1964. 29 9002, 9010 (1964); see 34 16548, 16551 Handlers therefore lower price. 65989, However, records show been 1012.44(a)(5)(i), 1012.60(e) pool, moneys distributed fresh was sold. 1012.71(a)(1). B 8 December 1980, respondents brought process.2 Respondents, plaintiffs included three organization. concluded organization addition, found persons obtaining review. dismissed handler's complaint because he failed exhaust 9 affirmed part reversed part, remanded decision merits. (1983). agreed properly standing: arguably Act. statutory Id., 400, n. 75, F.2d, 1252, 75. refused follow Ninth Circuit Rasmussen Hardin, 461 595, cert. denied sub nom. Butz, 409 933, 93 229, 188 (1972), held precluded statute seeking 10 granted certiorari resolve conflict Circuits. 464 991, 480, 678 now reverse judgment case. 11 Respondents filed Administrative Procedure (APA), 701 APA confers general cause "adversely aggrieved agency meaning relevant statute," 702, withdraws extent "preclude[s] review," 701(a)(1). Whether what particular precludes determined express language, scheme, objectives, history, nature involved. Southern Co. Seaboard Allied Mining Corp., 442 444, 454463, 99 2388, 23942398, 60 1017 (1979); Morris Gressette, 432 491, 499507, 97 2411, 24172421, 53 506 (1977); generally Note, Statutory Preclusion Judicial Review 1976 Duke L.J. 431, 442449. Therefore, we examine "to determine review, and, not, foreclosed [respondents] belon[g]." Barlow Collins, 397 159, 173, 832, 841, 25 192 (1970) (opinion BRENNAN, J.,); Data Processing Service Camp, 150, 156, 827, 831, 184 (1970). 12 intend strip judiciary predecessor, Adjustment 1933, 48 31, contained provision relating 1935, however, added mechanism could 49 760. That retained legislation remains 608c(15) today. Section requires first remedies made available Secretary. 608c(15)(A); 900.50900.71 After formal exhausted, ruling "in [they are] inhabitant[s], ha[ve their] principal place[s] business." 608c(15)(B). These handler-initiated evident Congress' desire able 13 remainder equally intention limit entitled participate development handlers, agricultural establish orderly system marketing them. producers—but consumers—are adoption retention (9), (16)(B). provides agreements 608(2), hearings them, 608(5), 608c(3), votes 608c(8)(A), (9)(B), (12), 608c(19). Nowhere there proceeding. type, omission sufficient reason believe foreclose regulatory Switchmen National Mediation Board, 320 297, 305306, 95, 99, 61 (1943); cf. Erika, Inc., 456 201, 208, 102 1650, 1654, 72 (1982). 14 sure, sections allude interests. 602(2), (4). preclusion turn like implicated. Rather, turns ultimately relied disregard law. supra, 167, S.Ct., 838. indicates consumers, objectives realized. 15 us that, while unequivocally directed complain set too high, same challenge, advanced initial scrutiny. There basis attributing draw distinction. regulation complex, technical undertaking. channelled disputes concerning instance believed expertise necessary illuminate questions about Had allow attack surely pursue 608c(15)(A) well. restriction remedy strongly suggests similar 16 provide convenient device evading A such, capacity. Alternatively, need find willing join initiate court. consumer-handler precisely exceptions administratively. Consumers consumer-handlers seek injunctions against operation "impede, hinder, delay" enforcement actions, even prohibited instituted 608c(15). Suits effectively nullify "equitable expeditious procedure testing validity without hampering Government's enforce compliance terms." (1935); Ruzicka, 329 287, 293294, 3, 67 207, 210, 91 290, (1946). think III 17 viewed somewhat perspective. First, recited usually employs. noted interpreted authorize challenges administration settlement funds, 733 (1944), history language directly specifically supported suits. circumstances, reasoned leave remedy. U.S.App.D.C., disagree Appeals' analysis. 18 just that—a presumption. presumption, presumptions interpreting statutes, specific reliable indicator intent. See, e.g., Milling U.S., 23942398; Schilling Rogers, 363 666, 670677, 80 1288, 12921295, 1478 (1960). inferred contemporaneous construction barring acquiescence it, see, Ludecke Watkins, 335 160, 68 1429, 92 1881 (1948), collective import behind statute, Heikkila Barber, 73 603, 972 (1953). More important case, inferences drawn whole. (1943). when detailed consideration issues behest persons, those other impliedly precluded. 2, 175, 9, 839, 842, J.); 300301, 9697; Associated General Contractors California, Inc. Carpenters, 459 519, 542, 103 897, 74 723 19 best illustrates relevance statute's Court's analysis supra. Attorney General's failure object change voting procedures unreviewable Voting Rights 1965. Neither nor said anything Nevertheless, "nature [statutory] . actions subject 501, 2418. approval reviewability unnecessarily extend period State wait effecting change. 504505, 2420. existence realization objectives. 505507, 24202421. proof convincing" traditional evidentiary sense, unremarkably implicit 20 take balanced approach reflected opinion. oft-quoted statement "only showing 'clear evidence' contrary should courts restrict access Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 141, 87 1507, 1511, 681 (1967). 462, 2398; Dunlop Bachowski, 421 560, 568, 95 1851, 1858, 377 (1975). According Appeals, evidence" standard unambiguous proof, consumers' behest. Since direct found, controlling. 21 has, never applied strict sense thought met, overcome, whenever discernible scheme." 157, 832. context analysis, rigid test useful reminder substantial doubt exists, since simply 22 true, noted, determined, certain right challenged deductions "producer fund" connection effect time. "[T]he deduction[s] reduce[d] pro tanto amount actually received milk." 302, 567. injured alleged "definite personal rights" "not possessed people generally," id., 304, 309, 570, gave fund. 306, 569. Though producers' itself behest, ibid., whole, concluded, implicitly authorized fund administration. 309310, 570571. "[H]andlers [could not] fund, financial interest use." 308, 570. Thus, "no forum" aspect challenged. achievement most fundamental objectives—to wit, protection 23 By contrast, threaten statute. consumers. Handlers, interested supplies cheapest possible 190, 326. can expected unlawful frustrated.3 Indeed, above, might themselves frustrate purposes. enacted Congress. Consumer undermine preference disrupting consistent conclusion Wickard analogous voter Gressette. IV implies pose threat objectives; realized through parties scheme.4 ordered. 26 STEVENS took many divided classes. referred Prior filing suit, petitioned hold amend longer rule. 65989 published Notice Request asked comments. Ibid. Subsequently, preliminary impact proposal invited 75956 (1980). 1981, respondents' further App. 5763. challenging inaction request moot Appeals. 403, 93, 1239, 1255, cross-petition issue, occasion consider it. pass savings secure successful irrelevant. Consumers' limited lowering hope reap benefit retail level. avoids pronouncement merits substantive claims. jurisdictional, address decided Railroad Passenger Corp. Assn. Passengers, 414 453, 456, 94 690, 692, 38 646 (1974); 465, 13, 696, 13.

Category: 8