United States et al. v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc.
344 U.S. 33 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An objection to a procedural error within an administrative agency proceeding is waived if not raised in a timely manner before the agency, thereby precluding judicial review of that error.
Facts:
- One Cunningham applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for a certificate to extend his motor carrier route.
- L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. (appellee) and several other carriers intervened in the proceeding to oppose Cunningham's application.
- The case was assigned to a hearing examiner who had not been appointed in compliance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- A hearing was held before this examiner, during which L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. participated.
- At no point during the hearing or subsequent review processes within the ICC did L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. object to the examiner's appointment or qualifications.
- The ICC ultimately issued the certificate to Cunningham.
Procedural Posture:
- L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. petitioned the United States District Court to set aside an order from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
- During the District Court proceedings, Tucker moved for leave to amend its petition to raise a new contention: that the ICC's hearing examiner was not appointed in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The three-judge District Court allowed the amendment.
- Upon proof of the improper appointment, the District Court invalidated the ICC's order on that procedural ground without considering the merits of the original complaint.
- The United States and the ICC, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, with L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. as appellee.
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 party's failure to object to the improper appointment of a hearing examiner during an administrative proceeding preclude that party from raising the objection for the first time in federal court to invalidate the agency's resulting order?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
No. A party's failure to make a timely objection to a procedural error before an administrative agency constitutes a waiver of that objection. The defect in an examiner's appointment is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect that voids the proceeding, and therefore must be raised before the agency when it has an opportunity for correction. Orderly procedure and fairness to both the agency and other litigants require that courts should not overturn administrative decisions based on errors that were not brought to the agency's attention. The precedent of Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath is not controlling on this point, as the timeliness of the objection was not raised or considered in that case.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes. The failure to object should not preclude a party from raising the issue, because the APA's requirement for an independent hearing examiner is an unwaivable limitation on the agency's power, not a personal right of a litigant. This requirement is a structural safeguard designed to ensure public confidence in the administrative process. An agency's failure to adhere to this mandate is not a mere procedural error but an act beyond its authority, which renders the resulting adjudication invalid regardless of whether a party raised a timely objection.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The failure to use a properly appointed examiner is a fundamental error that vitiates the entire proceeding, regardless of whether an objection was made. The Court's decision in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath allowed a collateral attack on an order for this very reason, which suggests a direct attack should succeed a fortiori. The APA's requirement for independent examiners was created to prevent the unfair commingling of prosecutorial and judicial functions. Allowing an agency to flout this mandate creates an error that permeates the entire case and undermines the statutory standards of fairness, which the court should enforce in all cases.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the doctrine of issue exhaustion, requiring parties to raise all arguments and objections before the administrative agency first. It solidifies the principle that a party cannot strategically withhold a procedural objection during an administrative proceeding and later use it as grounds for reversal on judicial review. By classifying the improper appointment of an examiner as a waivable procedural error rather than a non-waivable jurisdictional defect, the Court prioritized administrative efficiency and finality. This ruling forces litigants to be vigilant and give agencies the first opportunity to correct their own mistakes, preventing courts from being burdened with issues that could have been resolved at the agency level.
Unlock the full brief for United States et al. v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc.