Court Opinion

ID: 9421269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:57:42.089606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:29.555191
License: Public Domain

*55Mr. Justice Burton,
whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Minton and Mr. Justice Harlan join,
dissenting.
For the reasons given by the Interstate Commerce Commission, 52 M. C. C. 511, 62 M. C. C. 646, and its administrative practice of over 15 years, I would sustain its interpretation of the Act to the effect that fresh and frozen dressed poultry, like fresh and frozen dressed meats, are not entitled to exemption as agricultural commodities. No appeal has been taken from that part of the judgment which held valid the Commission’s determination that fresh and frozen dressed meats are products manufactured from agricultural commodities. The Commission’s like treatment of poultry is not arbitrary or unreasonable. On the contrary, there was much evidence before the Commission which clearly supported its decision. Consequently, we should accord that decision the weight ordinarily given to informed administrative action. We cannot say that the order of the Commission, which held that there is no significant distinction between the two, is not an allowable judgment.
“Such determinations [of fact by the Shipping Board or Interstate Commerce Commission as a basis for administrative orders] will not be set aside by courts if there is evidence to support them. Even though, upon a consideration of all the evidence, a court might reach a different conclusion, it is not authorized to substitute its own for the administrative judgment.” Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U. S. 297, 304. See also, Federal Communications Commission v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U. S. 223, 229; United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., 327 U. S. 515, 535-536; Barrett Line, Inc. v. United States, 326 U. S. 179, 199.