Court Opinion

ID: 9650375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:33:50.901013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:20.871509
License: Public Domain

STONE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I feel compelled to differ with the majority opinion upon one issue. That issue *1010has to do with the necessity of action hy the Attorney General under Section 4(b) of the Act.
Appellant urges that the Administrator was without authority and, in fact, was prohibited from bringing this action. This contention is based upon provisions in Section 4(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 204(b), and in Section 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 209, which appellant claims, require such an action to be “subject to the direction and control of the Attorney General”; and upon the claim that this action was brought by counsel for the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor without the direction or control of the Attorney General. While appellant urges that Section 9 of the Act is pertinent to this inquiry, such relevancy seems remote to me.
The controlling law, as to this issue before us, is to be found in Section 4(b) of this Act. Section 4(b) gives to the Administrator the broad power to “appoint such employees as he deems necessary to carry out his functions and duties under this Act [chapter].” The immediately pertinent language is that “Attorneys appointed under this section may appear for and represent the Administrator in any litigation, but all such litigation shall be subject to the direction and control of the Attorney General.”
This specific provision as to attorneys clearly means two things: (1) that attorneys of the Administrator may represent him in litigation; and (2) that all of such litigation is — the wording is “shall be”— subject to the direction and control of the Attorney General. Whether this limitation requires active instructions — specific or general — from the Attorney General or whether, in case of inaction by him, the litigation may be handled by the attorneys for the Administrator, we need not determine — in fact, that question is not here. It is not here because (whichever of the above alternatives is correct) the power is, I think, clearly placed in the Attorney General to direct and control all such litigation; and because the Attorney General has exercised that power through instructions contained in a letter2 addressed by him to the Administrator. The part of that letter particularly pertinent here is as follows :
“This letter will confirm the arrangement reached this .morning by which our two Departments will proceed to the enforcement of the Wage and Hour Law under the co-ordination of Benjamin V. Cohen and under the following division of responsibility.
“The legal staffs of your Administration will handle your legal work, including litigation in the courts of a civil character, with the agreement that notice will be given to the Attorney General in any case involving an issue of constitutionality.”
In the letter .to the Acting Regional Director from appellant wherein appellant set forth its reasons for not appearing at the *1011hearing in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum, it is clearly set forth that appellant is urging that the subpoena violates its rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. In its return to the show cause order in this case, appellant sets out repeatedly its position that the subpoena is in violation of these two Amendments. In short, before this litigation was begun the Administrator was apprised that constitutional questions were involved. Such were raised by pleadings in the litigation. In its motion to dismiss this application appellant raised this very issue to the trial court but both court and counsel for the Administrator gave no weight thereto.
In this situation, it became the duty of the Administrator, or of his acting representative (the Acting Regional Director), to notify the Attorney General. Such was the requirement of the instructions in the above letter from the Attorney General. There is no claim nor evidence that any notice was ever given. So far as this record shows, the Attorney General has no knowledge that ■ this litigation exists. It was brought and conducted entirely by attorneys for the Administrator.
That this limitation upon the power of the Administrator to initiate and conduct litigation through his own attorneys is substantial and not merely formal is determined by the Supreme Court (Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160, 174, 47 S.Ct. 553, 71 L.Ed. 978) in considering the provision (of like character) in Section 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act governing mandamus proceedings.
I think the court should not have proceeded when this issue was raised until it had ascertained whether counsel for the Administrator was in position, under Section 4(b), to conduct the litigation. Certainly, it had no right to make the order after it was apprised of the instructions from the Attorney General. If, with knowledge that counsel for the Administrator are proceeding in violation of the instructions of the Attorney General, a court can nevertheless go ahead as was here done, then this provision of Section 4(b) of the Act can be and is here nullified.
I think the order should be set aside with directions to dismiss the application unless the Attorney General shall, within a defined period, file in the court instructions indicating what direction and control he desires to exercise in this litigation and, if such be filed, that the direction and control of the litigation, in so far as the applicant is concerned, shall proceed in accord therewith.

 The letter, in full, is as follows:
“Office of The Attorney General Washington, D. G.
January 18, 1939.
Hon. Elmer F. Andrews, Administrator,
Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor,
Washington, D. O.
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This letter will confirm the arrangement reached this morning by which our two departments will proceed to the enforcement of the Wage and Hour Law under the coordination of Benjamin Y. Cohen and under the following division of responsibility.
The legal staffs of your Administration-will handle your legal work, including litigation in the courts of a civil character, with the agreement that notice will be given to the Attorney General in any case involving an issue of constitutionality or if it is carried by any party to the court of last resort of any state or territory or to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States.
In the Circuit Court of Appeals and in a state court of last resort, the Attorney General will take such part in the conduct of such cases as he deems to be in tlie interest of the United States.
In the event that any such litigation is carried to the Supreme Court of the United States, the same shall be under the control and direction of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, with such assistance as they may desire from your legal staff.
This Department will forward for prosecution by United States Attorneys cases certified for prosecution by you, and the United States Attorneys will be assisted either from your staff or from the staff of the Department of Justice in such cases as may be decided on-in each case.
If this statement of the arrangement complies with your understanding of it, will you be good enough to indicate it by a reply.
Yours very truly,
Frank Murphy,
Attorney General.”