Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
2 L. Ed. 2d 370, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1857, 355 U.S. 411 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretion to decide whether a valid cease and desist order against one firm should be held in abeyance until its competitors are subject to similar orders rests with the administrative agency, and a reviewing court may not overturn that decision absent a patent abuse of discretion.
Facts:
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) determined that two separate companies, Moog Industries, Inc. and C. E. Niehoff & Co., had engaged in illegal price discrimination in violation of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.
- The FTC issued cease and desist orders against each company, requiring them to stop the unlawful pricing practices.
- Moog Industries, Inc. argued that it would suffer serious financial loss if it was prohibited from engaging in pricing practices that were still open to its competitors.
- C. E. Niehoff & Co. argued that it would be forced to go out of business if compelled to sell at a uniform price while its competitors were not under a similar restraint.
- Both companies effectively requested that the enforcement of the orders against them be delayed until their competitors were also prohibited from the same practices.
Procedural Posture:
- In the first case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a cease and desist order against Moog Industries, Inc.
- Moog, as petitioner, sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the FTC's order.
- The Eighth Circuit then denied Moog's subsequent motion to hold the judgment in abeyance.
- In the second case, the FTC issued a cease and desist order against C. E. Niehoff & Co.
- Niehoff sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the FTC’s finding of a violation but directed that the cease and desist order should not take effect until a future date to be determined by the court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases to resolve the conflict between the two circuit courts' decisions.
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 a United States Court of Appeals have the authority to postpone the enforcement of a valid Federal Trade Commission cease and desist order against a single company until the FTC takes similar action against the company's competitors?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A court of appeals does not have the authority to postpone a valid FTC order pending action against a respondent's competitors. In shaping remedies, an administrative agency like the Federal Trade Commission is called upon to exercise its specialized, experienced judgment. The decision of whether to delay an order depends on a variety of factors peculiarly within the expert understanding of the Commission, such as defining the relevant industry, assessing the nature of competition, and appraising the adverse effects of a postponement. The Commission is also solely empowered to develop an enforcement policy and allocate its resources to best achieve the goals set by Congress. Therefore, a reviewing court should not entertain this question unless it was first raised before the Commission, and if the Commission has decided it, the determination should not be overturned unless there is a patent abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the doctrine of judicial deference to the expertise and remedial discretion of administrative agencies. By establishing the 'patent abuse of discretion' standard for reviewing an agency's enforcement timing, the Court significantly limits the power of appellate courts to interfere with agency strategy. This precedent solidifies an agency's authority to pursue violators on a case-by-case basis rather than being forced into industry-wide proceedings. Consequently, it forces respondents to make their arguments about competitive disadvantage and fairness directly to the agency during the administrative process, rather than saving them for judicial review.
