# Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 11, 1946 · 327 U.S. 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419756

## Case

- **Full name:** Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 11, 1946
- **Citations:** 327 U.S. 186; 166 A.L.R. 531; 66 S. Ct. 494; 90 L. Ed. 614; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3089
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murphy
- **Judges:** Jackson, Murphy, Rutledge
- **Cited by:** 897 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419756

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that Fourth Amendment, “if applicable [to administrative subpoenas], at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be ‘particularly described,’ if also the inquiry is one the demanding agency is authorized …
- stating that beyond requirement that an investigation be authorized by Congress, reasonableness “comes down to specification of the documents to be produced adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry”
- holding that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to all business and that there is no First Amendment exemption from the Act for newspaper publishing and distribution companies
- stating that the inquiry by subpoena need not be “limited ... by forecasts of the probable result of the investigation” (quoting Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919))
- stating that the inquiry by subpoena need not be "lim- ited . . . by forecasts of the probable result of the investigation" (quot- ing Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919))

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Murphy,
dissenting.
It is not without difficulty that I dissent from a procedure the constitutionality of which has been established for many years. But I am unable to approve the use of non-judicial subpoenas issued by administrative agents.
Administrative law has increased greatly in the past few years and seems destined to be augmented even further in the future. But attending this growth should be a new and broader sense of responsibility on the part of administrative agencies and officials. Excessive use or abuse of authority can not only destroy man’s instinct for liberty but will eventually undo the administrative processes themselves. Our history is not without a precedent of a successful revolt against a .ruler who “sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people.”
Perhaps we are too far removed from the experiences ' of the past to appreciate fully the consequences that may result from an irresponsible though well-meaning use of *219 the subpoena power. To allow a non-judicial officer, unarmed with judicial process, to demand the books and papers of an individual is an open invitation to abuse of that power. It is no answer that the individual may-refuse to produce the material demanded. Many persons have yielded solely because of the air of authority with which the demand is made, a demand that cannot be enforced without subsequent judicial aid. Many invasions of private rights thus occur without the restráining hand of the judiciary ever intervening.
Only by confining the subpoena power exclusively to the judiciary can there be any insurance against this corrosion of liberty. Statutory enforcement would not thereby be made impossible. Indeed, it would be made easier. A people’s desire to cooperate with the enforcement of a statute is in direct proportion to the respect for individual rights shown in the enforcement process. Liberty is too priceless to be forfeited through the zeal of ah administrative agent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419756. Public record. Not legal advice.