Court Opinion

ID: 9458526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:54:23.786275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:47.767458
License: Public Domain

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the judgment of the court, but I reach its result by a different route. I interpret § 13 of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2022 (1970), to authorize judicial review of the penalty imposed by the Department on the merchant. But since the administrative decision disqualifying Welch for sixty days was not arbitrary or capricious, it is not invalid. Consequently, I join in reversing the judgment of the district court.
The most important reason for believing that the district court has jurisdiction to review and, if need be, to modify the administrative decision fixing the length of time a merchant is disqualified is the structure of the food stamp program itself. The Act authorizes the Department of Agriculture to designate retailers who are qualified to redeem food stamps. 7 U.S.C. § 2017. To assure compliance with the Act, Congress authorized the Department to disqualify any retailer who violates its provisions. Congress, however, did not fix the maximum period of disqualification. Instead, it authorized the agency to do this by regulation. 7 U.S.C. § 2020. The regulation provides that the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department may suspend a retail food store for a reasonable period of time not to exceed three years, as the Service may determine. 7 C.F.R. § 272.6(a) (1971).
As the government concedes in its brief, neither the Act nor the regulation grants a merchant an evidentiary hearing in the administrative process, either initially or on review. The only hearing allowed by the Act is in the district court. The scope of that hearing is the primary issue before us. The government urges that it is limited to the question of whether the merchant should be disqualified. Adoption of the government’s view will deprive the merchant of any hearing — administrative or judicial —on the equally important question of how long he should be disqualified.
At the outset, we should remember: “There is no presumption against judicial review and in favor of administrative absolutism . . . unless that purpose is fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.” Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 157, 90 S.Ct. 827, 831, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). The government’s position can be sustained, it seems to me, only by ignoring that admonition. The district court is charged with review of the “final determination” of the “action of disqualification.” 7 U.S.C. §§ 2020 and 2022. The “final determination” made by the administrative reviewing officer deals with two issues: 1) whether the merchant violated the Act; and, 2) if he did, how long he should be denied participation in the program. Both elements comprise the “action of disqualification,” and, if we are to follow the teaching of Data Processing, both are subject to judicial review. Nothing in the Act refutes this assumption. Indeed, the Act specifically states, in speaking of the scope of judicial review, that “the suit shall be a trial de novo by the court in which the court shall determine the validity of the questioned administrative action in issue.” 7 U.S.C. § 2022. As Judge Edwards, dissenting in Martin v. United States, 459 F.2d 300, 302 (6th Cir.1972), convincingly demonstrates, a trial de novo “gives to the reviewing court all the power that the court or agency below possessed, including the power to enter a disposition or judgment different from that originally entered.”
Judge Edwards’ conclusion is buttressed by the statutory direction to the district court to “enter such judgment or order as it determines is in accord*686anee with the law and the evidence” when it finds the administrative action is invalid. 7 U.S.C. § 2022. This provision, I believe, is a mandate for the district court to go beyond the threshold question of whether the merchant should be disqualified, and, if need be, to enter judgment on the reasonableness of the duration of his disqualification.
This interpretation of the Act accords with its legislative history. Senate Report No. 1124, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted at 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News, pp. 3275, 3276 (1964), states “retailers . . . would have administrative and judicial appeals from . withdrawal of approval [to redeem stamps].” Again, the Report states, “The rights of retailers and wholesalers are carefully guarded under the provisions of this act.” It continues, “This section [7 N.S.C. § 2022] provides for administrative and judicial review of the disqualification of such a participating concern. . . .” 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News at p. 3291 (1964). By linking administrative and judicial review without suggesting that they differ in scope, the Report indicates that they are coextensive. Since the duration of disqualification may be reviewed administratively, the Report illustrates that Congress intended that the penalty may also be reviewed judicially.
In sum, from the language of the Act and its legislative history, it appears unlikely that Congress authorized the Department to disqualify a merchant for any period not exceeding its own predetermined maximum without any hearing on the duration of the disqualification.
In the case before us, Welch admits the violations of the Act. He has introduced no evidence that a sixty day suspension is unreasonable or that it is at variance with suspensions meted out to others under similar circumstances. Accordingly, I conclude that the action of the Secretary is valid.