Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs representing livestock marketing agencies brought suit against the Secretary of Agriculture regarding an order setting livestock market prices.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. â€œTo give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determination upon evidence, the officer who makes the determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them.â€
Issue. Whether the allegations should have been stricken.
Held. No. The Supreme Court of the United States (the Court) noted the import of the allegation that â€œthe Secretary made the rate order without having heard or read any of the evidence, and without having heard the oral arguments or having read or considered the briefs which the plaintiffs submitted.â€ All of this was given to the Acting Secretary. In the Court’s opinion, because it was â€œSecretary…assume[d] the responsibilityâ€ of issuing the order, it should have been the Secretary who was present for the hearing. The hearing was of â€œquasi-judicial nature,â€ and the allegations should not have been stricken.
Discussion. â€œThe one who decides must hear.â€