Court Opinion

ID: 9418968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:44:04.60302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:13.735587
License: Public Domain

*23A Petition for Reheating, Filed on May 20, 1938, Was Denied on May 31, 1938.
Per Curiam.
The Solicitor General moves for a rehearing of this case upon two grounds:
First. The first ground is that the Court has reversed itself; that the present decision is “directly contrary to the law of the case” as established by the Court’s decision on the former appeal, Morgan v. United States, 298 U. S. 468; and that “a procedural omission” previously held “to be of no significance” is now regarded as “fatally defective.”
These assertions are unwarranted. Not only are the two decisions consistent, but the rule announced in our former opinion was applied and was décisive of the present appeal. And the Government is in no position to claim surprise. The question whether there had been a fair hearing in the present case, in the light of the situation disclosed by the Secretary’s testimony and the other evidence, was fully argued at the bar. Appellants presented, both orally and in an elaborate brief, with copious references to the record, the contention which we sustained.
The first appeal was brought to this Court because the ‘plaintiffs had been denied an opportunity to prove that the Secretary of Agriculture had failed, to give them the full hearing which the statute required. Their allegations to that effect had been struck out by the District Court. 8 F. Supp. 766. We held its ruling to be erroneous and that the question whether the plaintiffs had a proper hearing should be determined, saying:
“But there must be a hearing in a substantial sense. And to give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon evidence, the officer who makes the determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them.”
*24The case was then tried by the District Court upon that issue. From the Secretary’s frank disclosure it appeared that findings of fact necessary to sustain the order had not been made by him upon his own consideration of the evidence but as stated below. Because such action fails to satisfy the requirement of a full hearing stated in our first opinion and quoted above, we reversed the judgment of. the District Court which sustained the" order.
Testimony- of the Secretary and his associates, disclosed what had actually occurred. It appeared that the oral argument before the Assistant Secretary had been general and sketchy; that, aside from the oral argument, which did not reveal the claims of the Government in any appropriate manner, the Government had submitted no brief and no statement of its contentions had been furnished; that in this situation^ findings had been prepared in the Bu ream of Animal Industry, Department of Agriculture, whose representatives had conducted the proceedings for the Government; that these findings, 180 in number, were elaborate, dealing with all phases of the practices and -facilities at the Kansas City live-stock market, the services and methods; bf the plaintiffs, and the costs and profits which should, be allowed them as reasonable. These findings, prepared not by the Secretary but by those who had prosecuted the case for the Government, were adopted by the Secretary with certain rate alterations. No opportunity was afforded to the plaintiffs for the examination of the findings thus prepared until they were served with the Secretary’s order and their request for a rehearing was denied.
The statement made in the petition for rehearing that the present decision is contrary to the law of the case as declared in our first opinion is wholly unfounded. Our decision was not rested upon the absence of an examiner’s report. So far from departing from our former opinion, *25or from the statement that the mere matter óf the presence or absence of an examiner’s report was not itself determinative, we reiterated both that, statement and the principle underlying it in our opinion on the'present appeal. We said:
“Those who are brought into contest with' the Government in a quasi-jüdicial proceeding, aimed at the control of their activities are entitled'to be fáirly advised of what the Government proposes and to be heard upon" its proposals before it issues its final command/ ->
“No such reasonable opportunity was accorded appellants. ...
“The Government adverts to an observation in our •former opinion that, while it was good practice — which we approved — to have the examiner, receiving the evidence in such a'case, prepare a report as a basis for exceptions and argument, we could not say that that particular type of procedure was essential to the validity of. the proceeding. That is true, for, as we said, what the statute requires 'relates to substance and not form.’ Conceivably the Secretary, in a case the narrow limits of which made such a procedure practicable, might himself hear the evidence and the contentions of both parties and make his findings upon thé spot." Again, the' evidence being in, the Secretary might receive the pro-' posed findings of both parties, each being notified of the proposals of the other, hear argument thereon and make his own findings.”
And, then, pointing out the distinction and the serious defect in the procedure in the instant case, we added:
“But what would not be essential to the adequacy of the hearing if the Secretary himself makes the findings is not a criterion for a case in which the Secretary accepts and makes as his own the findings which have been prepared by the active prosecutors for the Government, after *26an ex parte discussion with them and without according any reasonable opportunity to the respondents in the proceeding to know the claims thus presented and to contest them. That is more' than an irregularity in practice; it is a vital defect.”
The distinction was again brought out in our recent decision in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., post, p. 333, where the mere absence of an examiner’s report was found not to be controlling,, as the record showed that in that case the contentions of the parties had been clearly defined and that there had been in the substantial sense a full and adequate hearing.
The effort to establish a case for rehearing, either because of an asserted inconsistency in our rulings or because of lack of opportunity for full argument, is futile.
Second. The second ground upon which a rehearing is sought is that there is impounded in the District Court a large sum representing charges' paid in excess of the rates fixed by the Secretary.' The Solicitor General raises' questions both of substance and procedure as to the disposition of these moneys. These questions are,appropriately for the District Court and they are not properly before us upon the present record. We have ruled that the order of the Secretary is invalid because the required hearing-was not given. We remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion. What further proceedings the Secretary may see fit to take in the light of our decision, or what determinations may be made by the District Court in relation to any such proceedings, are not matters which we should attempt to forecast or hypothetically to decide."
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Cardozo and Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration of this petition.