Document: 329 U.S. 287 67 S.Ct. 207 91 L.Ed. 290 UNITED STATESv.RUZICKA et al. No. 54. Decided Dec. 16, 1946. Argued Nov. 20, 21, Mr. George T. Washington, of D.C., Acting Sol. Gen., for petitioner. William Parker Ward, Chicago, Ill., respondents. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 We brought this case here, 327 776, 66 964, because it raises questions importance in administration Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 1937. 50 Stat. 246, 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 seq., seq. The general scheme and its operation have been before us a series cases. United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 533, 59 993, 83 1446; Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 110, 62 523, 86 726; Stark Wickard, 321 288, 64 559, 88 733. Our immediate concern is with provisions that distribute enforcing authority between courts Secretary Agriculture. These become relevant to enforcement Milk Order 41, an 'Order Regulating Handling Illinois, Area', more particularly portion elaborate which defines rights obligations 'handlers' milk. Section 941.1(5). was issued under powers delegated Agricultur effectuate purposes Act. 8c 2 41 classifies milk received into Chicago area according uses. To each four classes market administrator assigns uniform 'use value.' All handlers are required report quantity purchased put classified On basis these reports administrator, taking account total produced amount devoted classification, as well balance Producersettlement Fund, making authorized adjustments, announces monthly minimum price be paid by producers. Since handler's receipts from re-sale milk, or sale products, vary distributed class, will create inequities unless adjustment made, based on comparative use value particular handler. mechanism Fund. Handlers contribute Fund whenever handled them during month greater than norm based. Conversely, whose distribution low fixed costs therefore out line their receipts, recompensed Effective such marketing rests proper accounting, reliable alert inspection. At best, however, errors inevitable, may call payments reliance industry upon makes prompt imperative. 3 An order payment resistance led litigation. Ruzickas, filed him transcript period controversy. Deficiencies were disclosed Ruzickas refused pay, disregard 941.8(e) (g) requiring handler pay within five days 'the so billed'. Under 8a(6) suit begun Northern District Illinois enforcement. Government prayed mandatory injunction commanding compliance sums alleged due If relevant, not there danger irreparable loss insolvency By answer justified failure chiefly ground demand faulty inspection accounts improper tests products. Court ruled defendants having failed avail themselves administrative remedy provided said Act, raise issues fact Court'. issue thus limited, granted Government's motion judgment pleadings. Circuit Appeals Seventh Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed Court, ruling validity Agriculture contested proceeding 8a(6). 152 F.2d 167. 4 Thus question whether resist claim against Agriculture, made procedure defined without previously sought challenge proceeding, also found fair reading context designed Congress realization. 5 sections statute directly our problem set margin.1 Briefly, district 'vested jurisdiction specifically enforce' o ders pursuant Act.2 authorizes his 'or any obligation imposed connection therewith' 'not accordance law', ask modified exempted it. When challenged, determination after hearing, final but only 'if law'. 8c(15)(A). test 'in law' bring Secretary's action review appropriate court. 8c(15)(B). But very subsection, (15), gives access relief opportunity judicial determination, provides pendency proceedings Secretary, court ruling, 'shall impede, hinder, delay obtaining relief' It when 'a decree has rendered same parties, covering subject matter, instituted subsection (15)' abate'. 6 sure, did say words that, enforce order, flows meaning, though explicitly stated words, mbedded coherent scheme. And we find taken entirety means attaining while at time protecting adequately interests individual handlers. devised gave aggrieved correction abuses agency charged intricate business control. In addition, if fails make amends called law legality assured establish claims grievances steps protection whole go forward. Sections 8c(15) form complementary procedural Contrariwise, would disharmony extrapolate right consider independently, furnished expert forum contest ultimate 8 situation indicates how disruptive allow properly come open independent adjudication After presumably careful study those technically equipped, program dairy farmers large areas country. success Congressionally control must depend efficiency administration. Promptness presupposition 41. Thus, definite deadlines every step program. measure, revolves around 'producers' fund solvent all formula equitably determined applicability. Failure meet promptly threaten Even temporary defaults some work unfairness others, encourage wider non-compliance, engender subtle forces doubt distruct readily dislocate delicate economic arrangements. vitality arrangement contingencies inevitable delays litigation, no matter alertly pursued, result attributed support much manifest here find. That avoided hazards policy persuasively indicated consideration grievance. thereby safeguarded collective interests. us, and, apparently, awaiting action. Presumably give respondents they netitled. dissatisfied entire need disturbed do justice case.3 9 suggested authorize short rather dialectic point brings own answer, even familiar, everyday special ascertaining law. not, be, abstract formulated constitutional terms, arising of, entwined with, factors understanding industry. first instance elucidation he resort had courts. seems emphasized different functions 8a serve directing shall 'impede, delay' 8a. 10 dealing solely This concluded since producer him, closed him. precisely As complete. 11 many enactments regulating enterprise divided duty agencies. greatest variety manner responsibility. Those who entitled speak tell development natural sciences often suffered premature generalization. Certainly recent growth counsels generalizations regarding what compendiously deem desirable, like this, hug shore precise relation immediately relevant. One observation, may, permitted. Both bodies law-enforcing agencies, utilized such. construing legislation important remember agencies collaborative 'instrumentalities justice', rivals. See Morgan, 183, 191, 795, 799, 1211; Federal Communications Commission Pottsville Broadcasting 309 134, 141 60 437, 440 84 656. decide inhere equity, exercising discretion, appears stage stay, pending disposition petition With court's leave, subsequently withdrawn. power acted us. Compare Scripps Howard Radio Com'n, 316 4, 875, 1229; Hecht Co. Bowles, 321, 587, 754. 12 Judgment reversed. 13 DOUGLAS concurs result. '8a(6) several hereby vested enforce, prevent restrain person violating regulation, agreement, heretofore hereafter title, now courts.' '8c(15)(A) Any file written stating provision therewith praying modification thereof therefrom. He thereupon given hearing petition, regulations approval President. prayer final, law.' '8c(15)(B) Courts (including Columbia) inhabitant, principal place business, equity bill purpose twenty date entry ruling. Service process delivering copy complaint. determines law, remand directions either (1) determine (2) take further as, opinion, requires. (15) section title. title (except where way counterclaim (15)) abate (15).' 8a(8) invoked adds remedies. implies favor 'During until notice petitioner, penalties act violation cannot petitioner finds good faith delay. nevertheless, proceed obtain Adjustment * believed equitable expeditious testing orders, hampering terms.' S.Re . 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 14.

Category: 7