United States et al. v. Morgan, Administratrix, et al.
313 U.S. 409 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative order is not invalid for lack of supporting evidence simply because the agency, after considering new evidence of changed circumstances, reaches a conclusion similar to a prior one. Furthermore, an administrator is not disqualified for bias merely for expressing strong public views on legal issues related to the case, and their mental deliberative processes are not subject to judicial probing.
Facts:
- Market agencies provided services for commission at the Kansas City Stockyards, a business regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
- In 1930, the Secretary initiated an inquiry to determine reasonable rates for the services provided by these market agencies.
- During the period from 1933 to 1937, market conditions changed, including a decrease in the volume of livestock and an increase in arrivals by truck, which resulted in smaller average consignment sizes.
- These changes in business operations led to an increase in the per-head cost for the market agencies to handle the livestock.
- Following a Supreme Court decision that invalidated his initial rate order on procedural grounds, the Secretary of Agriculture wrote a letter to the New York Times vigorously criticizing the court's decision.
- Throughout the 1933-1937 period, the market agencies charged rates higher than those prescribed in the Secretary's initial 1933 order, with the excess funds being held in an impoundment account pending the outcome of litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Agriculture issued a rate order in 1933, which market agencies challenged by suing in federal district court.
- The district court upheld the order, but the U.S. Supreme Court (in Morgan I) remanded the case for the trial court to determine if a 'full hearing' had been granted.
- On remand, the district court again upheld the order.
- The market agencies appealed again, and the U.S. Supreme Court (in Morgan II) invalidated the order due to procedural defects.
- The Secretary reopened the proceedings to determine rates for the past 'impounding period' (1933-1937).
- Before a new order was issued, the district court ordered the impounded funds to be released to the market agencies.
- The government appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court (in Morgan III) reversed, ordering the district court to hold the funds pending a new, final order from the Secretary.
- The Secretary issued a new order in 1939, and the government moved the district court to distribute the funds accordingly.
- The district court, after permitting the market agencies to depose the Secretary, held the new order invalid and again ordered the funds released to the agencies.
- The government (United States) appealed this decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 the Secretary of Agriculture's rate-making order for a past period invalid because he allegedly failed to properly consider changed circumstances during that period and was biased due to public criticism of a prior court ruling in the same case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
No, the Secretary of Agriculture's order is valid. The Secretary fulfilled his duty by undertaking a new inquiry for the past period, considering new evidence of changed circumstances, and exercising his expert judgment to determine reasonable rates. The record shows the Secretary did not ignore post-1933 conditions but rather did not afford them the same weight as the market agencies desired, which is a matter of administrative discretion, not judicial review. Regarding bias, an administrator's expression of strong views on matters of policy or law does not disqualify them from performing their adjudicatory functions, as they, like judges, are presumed capable of fairly judging a controversy on its merits. Finally, the district court erred by subjecting the Secretary to an examination of his mental processes; the integrity of the administrative process, like the judicial process, requires that such deliberations not be probed.
Dissenting - Justice Roberts
Yes, the Secretary's order is invalid. The Secretary did not conduct a genuine, fresh inquiry into the reasonableness of the rates for the 1933-1937 period based on actual experience. Instead, he effectively attempted to reissue his procedurally defective 1933 order 'nunc pro tunc' (retroactively) without giving proper weight to the substantially changed conditions that increased the agencies' costs. The Secretary had access to actual operational data for the period in question but chose to rely on an old forecast instead of a new survey of the facts. This preference for forecast over actual survey constitutes an arbitrary judgment, and the case should be sent back for a proper ascertainment of the facts based on all available evidence.
Analysis:
This decision, often called Morgan IV, is a cornerstone of administrative law, solidifying the principle of judicial deference to agency expertise and process. It establishes that courts should not substitute their judgment for an agency's in complex, policy-laden areas like ratemaking, so long as the agency has considered the relevant evidence. More significantly, it created a strong presumption against probing the mental processes of administrative decision-makers, treating their deliberations as akin to those of a judge. This protection enhances agency independence but also limits the scope of discovery for parties challenging administrative action.
