Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner
387 U.S. 158 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-enforcement challenge to an administrative regulation is not ripe for judicial review if the regulation does not have a direct and immediate impact on the challenging party's primary conduct and if withholding judicial consideration does not impose a significant hardship.
Facts:
- The Commissioner of Food and Drugs promulgated a regulation under the Color Additive Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
- The regulation stated that the Commissioner may suspend certification service for color additives to any person who refused to permit FDA employees free access to all manufacturing facilities, processes, and formulae.
- Color additives used in cosmetics are required by law to be from a certified batch; using an uncertified additive renders a cosmetic 'adulterated' and illegal in interstate commerce.
- The Toilet Goods Association, an organization of cosmetics manufacturers, believed the regulation exceeded the FDA's statutory authority.
- At the time of the lawsuit, the FDA had not attempted to enforce the regulation by ordering an inspection of any manufacturer's facilities or formulae under its authority.
- Consequently, no manufacturer had refused an inspection, and no certification services had been suspended pursuant to the regulation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Toilet Goods Association and 39 individual manufacturers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of HEW and the FDA Commissioner.
- The District Court held that the case was justiciable and the issues were ripe for review.
- Recognizing a potential conflict with another circuit, the District Court certified the question of jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the challenge to the inspection regulation was not ripe for judicial review, while challenges to three other regulations were.
- The Toilet Goods Association (petitioners) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the inspection regulation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a pre-enforcement challenge to an FDA regulation, which authorizes the Commissioner to suspend certification services for refusal to permit inspection of facilities and formulae, ripe for judicial review when no specific inspection has been ordered?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. This pre-enforcement challenge is not ripe for judicial review. To determine ripeness, courts must evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. Here, the issue is not fit for judicial decision because the regulation is not a purely legal question; its propriety depends on a factual understanding of the FDA's enforcement problems and needs, which is best developed in the context of a specific enforcement action. Furthermore, there is no significant hardship to the petitioners from withholding review. The regulation does not require manufacturers to change their primary, day-to-day conduct. Unlike other regulations that might require changing labels or product formulas, this one requires no immediate action. The only potential consequence of noncompliance is the suspension of certification services, which is not an irremediable hardship and can be challenged through administrative and judicial processes if and when it occurs.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. Justice Douglas dissented for the reasons stated in the District Court's opinion, which found the matter ripe for review.
Analysis:
This case, decided alongside Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, clarifies the contours of the ripeness doctrine in administrative law. While Abbott Labs expanded access to pre-enforcement review, Toilet Goods demonstrates its limits. The key distinction is the regulation's immediate impact: if a rule forces an immediate, costly change in primary business conduct, it is likely ripe. If, however, the rule's effect is contingent, non-self-executing, and can be challenged later without severe penalty, courts will deem the challenge unripe, requiring parties to wait for a concrete enforcement action. This decision solidifies a pragmatic, two-part balancing test that focuses on the practical realities faced by regulated parties.
Unlock the full brief for Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner