Block v. Community Nutrition Institute
467 U.S. 340 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a statute provides a detailed and comprehensive remedial scheme for a specific class of persons, congressional intent to preclude judicial review for other classes of persons is fairly discernible from the statutory structure, thereby overcoming the general presumption in favor of judicial review.
Facts:
- Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the Secretary of Agriculture issues milk market orders that set minimum prices handlers (processors) must pay to producers (dairy farmers).
- The orders classify raw milk based on its end use, with 'Class I' milk (for fluid consumption) commanding a higher minimum price than 'Class II' milk (for products like cheese or butter).
- Handlers make payments into a regional pool, and producers receive a weighted average price, ensuring market stability.
- A specific provision requires handlers to make a 'compensatory payment' for reconstituted milk (made from milk powder and water) if it is processed for fluid consumption.
- This compensatory payment is equal to the difference between the higher Class I price and the lower Class II price, making reconstituted milk more expensive.
- A group of individual consumers, including the Community Nutrition Institute, believed this compensatory payment requirement illegally inflated the price of dairy products they purchased.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents, including individual consumers, filed suit against the Secretary of Agriculture in U.S. District Court to challenge the compensatory payment requirement in milk market orders.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that consumers were precluded by the Act from obtaining judicial review.
- Respondents (as appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Act did not present 'clear and convincing evidence' of congressional intent to overcome the strong presumption in favor of judicial review for consumers.
- The Secretary of Agriculture (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, which provides an explicit administrative and judicial review mechanism for milk handlers, impliedly preclude judicial review of milk market orders for ultimate consumers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 impliedly precludes judicial review for consumers challenging milk market orders. The Administrative Procedure Act's general presumption of reviewability is overcome where congressional intent to preclude review is 'fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.' The Act's structure establishes a detailed remedial framework exclusively for handlers, requiring them to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. The conspicuous omission of consumers from this intricate scheme indicates Congress intended to foreclose their participation. Allowing consumer suits would disrupt this complex regulatory system and permit handlers to circumvent the mandatory administrative process. Unlike the situation in Stark v. Wickard, where producers' interests were unprotected, here handlers' interests in lower prices are aligned with consumers', ensuring that handlers can be relied upon to challenge unlawful agency actions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of implied preclusion of judicial review. It establishes that a statute's structure, particularly the presence of a detailed remedy for one specific group, can serve as 'clear and convincing evidence' of Congress's intent to deny that remedy to others, even without explicit preclusionary language. The Court re-calibrated the standard, shifting from a search for explicit negative commands to a more holistic analysis where preclusion is 'fairly discernible' from the overall legislative scheme. This approach gives courts more leeway to infer preclusion and reinforces the importance of exhausting Congressionally-mandated administrative remedies, impacting future challenges to complex regulatory schemes.
Unlock the full brief for Block v. Community Nutrition Institute