Lexplug logoLexplug

Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of California

Supreme Court of United States
449 U.S. 232 (1980)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The issuance of a complaint by an administrative agency, which merely initiates adjudicatory proceedings, is not "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act and is therefore not subject to immediate judicial review in federal court.


Facts:

  • In December 1971, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its intention to investigate potential violations in the petroleum industry.
  • Amidst public concern over gasoline shortages, Senator Henry M. Jackson on May 31, 1973, requested that the FTC prepare a report on the industry within 30 days.
  • In late June 1973, the FTC subpoenaed and interviewed three officers from Standard Oil Company of California (Socal), which was its sole inquiry into the company.
  • On July 6, 1973, the FTC sent a preliminary staff report to Senator Jackson, characterizing it as an "internal staff memorandum" and requesting that it not be made public.
  • Against the FTC's wishes, Senator Jackson publicly released the report on July 13, 1973.
  • Five days later, on July 18, 1973, the FTC issued a formal complaint against Socal and seven other major oil companies, alleging they were violating the Federal Trade Commission Act.
  • Socal alleged that the FTC issued the complaint due to political pressure and without sufficient evidence to form a "reason to believe" a violation had occurred.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an administrative complaint against Standard Oil Company of California (Socal).
  • Socal's motion for the FTC to dismiss the complaint was denied.
  • Socal filed a complaint against the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (trial court), seeking to have the agency's action declared unlawful and withdrawn.
  • The District Court dismissed Socal's complaint on the ground that preliminary agency decisions are not reviewable.
  • Socal (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed, holding that the issuance of the complaint was 'final agency action' and that the district court could inquire whether the FTC had in fact made a 'reason to believe' determination.
  • The FTC (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

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 Federal Trade Commission's issuance of a complaint, initiating an administrative proceeding, constitute "final agency action" that is subject to immediate judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

No. The Federal Trade Commission's issuance of a complaint is not 'final agency action' subject to immediate judicial review. The complaint is not a definitive statement of the agency's position but rather a threshold determination that further inquiry is warranted. It carries no legal force or direct effect on Socal's day-to-day business, aside from the burden of litigation itself, which does not constitute irreparable harm. Allowing judicial review at this preliminary stage would interfere with the agency's function, deny it the chance to correct its own errors, and lead to inefficient, piecemeal litigation. Any procedural defects in the issuance of the complaint can be raised on appeal to a court of appeals after the administrative adjudication is complete and a final order has been issued.


Concurring - Justice Stevens

This opinion concurs only in the judgment. The Court is correct to reverse, but for the wrong reason. The issuance of an administrative complaint is not 'agency action' reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act at all, either now or later. Agency action is meant to encompass formal orders or rules that alter legal rights. The decision to initiate a proceeding is analogous to a prosecutor’s decision to seek an indictment; it has a serious practical impact but does not change the respondent's legal rights and was not intended by Congress to be subject to judicial review. The majority's holding that this decision might be reviewable later is impractical, as the issue would become moot, and it improperly expands the scope of judicial supervision over the Executive Branch.



Analysis:

This case establishes a strong presumption against the immediate reviewability of preliminary agency actions. By narrowly defining "final agency action," the Court reinforced the doctrine of administrative exhaustion, requiring parties to complete the entire agency process before seeking relief in court. This decision shields agencies' prosecutorial discretion from premature judicial interference, preventing regulated parties from using lawsuits to derail enforcement actions at their outset. The ruling forces respondents to litigate the merits within the administrative framework, preserving judicial resources and agency autonomy.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"