Brief Fact Summary. Three individual consumers of dairy products, a handler, and a nonprofit organization (Respondents) brought suit in District Court, contending that a particular milk market order issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) regulating the price of “reconstituted milk” made it uneconomical for handlers to process.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Whether and to what extent a particular statute precludes judicial review is determined not only from its express language, but from the structure of its statutory scheme, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved.
When a statute provides a detailed mechanism for judicial consideration of particular issues at the behest of particular persons, judicial review of those issues at the behest of other persons may be found to be impliedly precluded.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Could the ultimate consumers of dairy products obtain judicial review of milk market orders issues of the Secretary under the authority of the Act?
Held. No. Consumers could not obtain judicial review of such orders. It was clear from the Act that Congress did not intend to strip the judiciary of all of its authority to review the Secretary’s orders; but it was equally clear that Congress did intend to limit the classes entitled to participate in the development of market orders to only handlers and producers. The Court of Appeals did not take a balances approach to construction. Dissent. None. Concurrence. None.
Discussion. This case was surprising because of the Court’s reliance on and discussion of the “implied preclusion” doctrine.