Supreme Court of the United States
Gray v. Powell, Receivers
December 15, 1941314 U.S. 402
Summary
The Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the Director’s denial of Seaboard’s exemption from the Bituminous Coal Code. It held that Congress committed the producer determination to the administrative agency and that the agency’s conclusion was entitled to respect because the proceeding afforded a fair hearing and applied the statute in a reasoned manner. The Court also held that the Code applied to the coal even though title did not technically pass, because requiring a title transfer would undermine the statute’s price-stabilization purpose. Justice Roberts, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Byrnes, dissented, concluding that the statute plainly excluded Seaboard’s captive-mining arrangement from regulation.
Holding
- Scope of judicial review of the producer determination. When Congress commits the determination of an exemption-related issue such as who is the producer to an administrative agency, judicial review is satisfied by determining whether the agency provided a fair hearing with notice and an opportunity to present the relevant circumstances and arguments, and whether it applied the statute in a just and reasoned manner. The court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s in the absence of a failure of those requirements.
- Whether Seaboard was the producer. Seaboard was not the producer of the coal for purposes of the exemption because its short-term arrangements, lack of investment in the coal lands and mining facilities, limited exposure to mining profits or losses, right to cancel when market coal became cheaper, and reliance on independent contractors placed it outside the producer-consumer exemption.
- Whether the Code required a technical transfer of title. Coal extracted under Seaboard’s arrangements was subject to the Code even without a technical transfer of title from Seaboard, because the Act covered coal sold or otherwise disposed of and did not require title passage as a condition of Code coverage.
Docket 18
Cited authorities
- 53 Stat. 561
- 53 Stat. 1433
- 4 FR 2947
- 49 Stat. 1008
- 50 Stat. 84
- 49 Stat. 993
- 50 Stat. 72
- 15 U.S.C. § 828
Cited by
- Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Federal Power Commission, Respondent Alabama Power Company. v. Federal Power…
- United States v. Parish of St. Bernard, Police Jury of the Parish of St. Bernard, Lake Borgne Basin Levee District…
- United States of America, Defendant, Appellant v. R. Perry Collins, Plaintiffs, Appellees (two Cases)
- Reynolds v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Anthony Jacobsky v. C. D’alfonso & Sons, Inc. And/or Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
- Elm Spring Farm, Inc. v. United States
- John M. Wiseman v. United States
- Robert Merrick v. United States