# Petition — FTC v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2172%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 449 U.S. 232 ## Text ‘ ” Gunre; ut, Ue 4 FILED 79-900 K. : DEC 10 i979 CHAR fez 1A, JR., CLERR OCTOBER TERM, 1979 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WADE H. MCCREE, JR. Solicitor General ALICE DANIEL Assistant Attorney General ELLIOTT SCHULDER Assistant to the Solicitor General Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 MICHAEL N. SOHN General Counsel HOWARD E. SHAPIRO Deputy General Counsel WARREN S. GRIMES Attorney Federal Trade Commission Washington, D.C. 20580 Page OI CI sisicinscccensesstnstisnsinscieititippousepsinninalnipinaale 1 IN, seiccspinnntiiicililedunbacinsniensebbiiiipilieniadcnaieaaieg 2 RI NE ins sesisnesciclnststieinntervccai 2 CTETOI TUUTITOG ann winceestccteniisetecsicnediicechetnanpnene 2 Statement .......... Kaincalllncssiasdorlandshivibsesusnisetemstiaheadiiinis 3 Reasons for granting the petition .................... 8 CINE Ss siicciccicmncccorsciccanddcadenntaasniuenaanamdaanma 21 PO PA ah ccdicrnnsiccccssnceeeeta vinnie amnatbelain la PEG TB isl A Liccievvilsicchiyipaienponeinticmediialiaetins 3a PII SG, ~ coscerineceinhteneel 23a I (8D cosine bce ln eee 25a MET vevcssccnqsciciccsinentiaea 27a PIE, Bocce Recreate 32a CITATIONS Cases: Atlantic Refining Co. v. FTC, 381 U.S. SUT | « cccceeasieenepcciaeldnaaeneealagaiannlade 14 Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 20222022222.- 12 Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 ...... 15 Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 .............. 18, 21 Chamber of Commerce v. FTC, 280 Fed. NIL alee Meme dns Re 5H SZ 20 Citizens To Preserve Overton Park v. Fete, GOL UG. Cae vicintctecsne 6, 11 City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, SOT Ud. TRO side 18 Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 .... 13 pat Cases—Continued Page Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 .......... 12 Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, 339 Ast hs Se a in cao 18 FPC v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 304 a, isl Aca cetnaccieicd 18, 20 PIU ¥. Klesner, 260 U.S. 19 ............2...:.. 16, 19 FTC v. Sperry Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. Tis seaassiniegalint 14 FTC v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 387 U.S. BE inemescrenis atch chcid tec petaiseilaneiniacascesones 14, 19 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 .......... 21 McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479 ...... 20 McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 .... 20 Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 355 USS. RESTLESS ESSERE aU ay EO Ree 14, 15 Morris v. Gressette, 482 U.S. 491 -.......... 12 Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., a anid aarniins 17, 21 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. LESS Sd ee ee On 15 Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34 -20222222-2----- 20 Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Comm’n, 304 U.S. 209 -............. 21 Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952 -........ 4 Renegotiation Board v. BannerCraft Co., SSE ESS RGU RNY WC 20 Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666 -............. 12 Southern Ry. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., No. 78-575 (June 11, 1979)......8, 11, 12 Thermal Ecology Must Be Preserved v. ME MN OO oa seh peensenenncoceene 19 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338.... 13 United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409.... 9,16 Ill Cases—Continued Page United States v. Morton Salt, 388 U.S. I ia ae 14 Vaon'v, Spek, SH UB. 174 2. 15 Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New OUR, BAe SI GEE ces Se 17 Statutes and rule: Administrative Procedure Act, 551 et seq.: RRR TIE dahcerctesasciacophacodacitioaieaetiae 3 5 U.S.C. 701(a) (2) ........ 2, &, 7, S, 41, 12, 16 Dee eee tka 2, 6, 8, 9,17, 18 RG WI iisiekchsensinnmnceasiveptabisiadeecdasips 19 BE 5 He, Semen anniek. meee RRO N Om 3 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 21(b) .......000...-..... 10 Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.: pS AE RE OUR R ae Me Cee Sree: 2, 3,14 i I ME iit sacieseneesinlncailoncibagibics 3 1m UR. SO 2c. 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 19 Fe GM IE Uiatditictents cosine 17, 19 Be rs I dictcdsincintsnccepdNndccetmacaieae 10 Ae aes PIE iapiieletaniistaniecsicoiheaeiad ns 10 Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. RMI ine eee (eR CISER ep Onee SVU PED POON ERIS 10 Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 70 e¢ seq.: IV Statutes and rule—Continued Page Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 68 et seq.: RS cay” |) a beeeh eae Rel s Mae 10 OR 10 pT SE aN DE ETAEES SECO COLT ON RTECS 10 gh _EARISERCRSSEIESIE with the Administrative Procedure Act, which exempts from court review matters committed by law to agency discretion,® and with the continued effec- tiveness of administrative law enforcement generally. Further, such probing into the Commissioners’ men- issuance of the Standard Oil complaint seven days later. This portion of the opinion might be read as questioning whether seven days is enough time for the Commissioners properly to weigh the staff’s input and make a determination. 8. The opinion emphasizes the FTC’s failure to submit a list of witnesses when requested by the ALJ, suggest- ing that the district court should be impressed by the number of facts—or the lack of them—that the FTC had on hand when it made its decision to issue a complaint. 5 Hills Bros. v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 F.2d 481, 483-84 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 270 U.S. 662 (1926) ; Mont- gomery Ward v. Federal Trade Commission, 379 F.2d 666, 672 (7th Cir. 1967) (determination under Section 5 of FTC Act that proceeding would be in the public interest is a matter committed to agency discretion). 65 U.S.C. § 701 (a) (2): This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that— * * * * * (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. See also Action on Safety and Health v. Federal Trade Com- mission, 498 F.2d 757, 760-62 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 4la tal processes is precisely the sort of inquiry forbidden by United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941).’ In sum, the Standard Oil decision threatens to up- set the proper balance between individual rights and effective law enforcement efforts by all administra- tive agencies. Under the present system of adminis- trative law and judicial review, enforcement pro- grams are not subject to premature and disabling judicial intervention, except in circumstances where 7In Morgan, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting pursuant to statutory authority, had established maximum prices for trading in the Kansas City Stockyards. Upon review, the lower court authorized the entities challenging the maximum pricing scheme to take the Secretary’s deposition. He was questioned at length regarding the process by which he reached his conclusions, including the manner and extent of his study of the record and his consultations with subordi- nates. The Supreme Court condemned this excursion in strong terms: “But the short of the business is that the Secretary should never have been subjected to this examination. ‘The proceeding before the Secretary has a quality re- sembling that of a judicial proceeding.’ Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 480. * * * We have explicitly held in this very litigation that ‘it was not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary’ 304 U.S. 1,18.” 313 U.S. at 442. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971), the Court held that, despite Morgan, examina- tion of administrative officials is proper in certain limited circumstances. But, in Overton Park, the Court was pre- sented with a clear and objective set of factors which the administrator should have considered in making his decision. Overton Park thus has no application to the present case, where the “reason to believe” decision is committed entirely to the agency’s discretion. 42a respondents would otherwise suffer irreparable in- jury. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, however, would greatly increase the interruptions in administrative processes and tip the balance unreasonably toward delay. Federal agencies conduct hundreds of adminis- trative proceedings every year. These agencies can- not function effectively if a substantial number of these proceedings are to be interrupted for premature review, or if Commissioners are constantly required to articulate for the courts the mental impressions that went into formulating their decisions to prose- cute. 43a We trust you share our concern over this unfor- tunate opinion, and we hope you will give prompt and favorable consideration to the FTC’s request. Please feel free to make whatever use of this letter you deem appropriate. Sincerely, /s/ /s/ /s/ Ralph C. Ferrara /s/ Brien Kehoe RALPH C. FERRARA BRIEN KEHOE General Counsel General Counsel Security and Federal Maritime Exchange Commission Commission /s8/ Norton J. Come Andrew S. Krulwich NORTON J. COME ANDREW S. Acting General KRULWICH Counsel General Counsel National Labor Consumer Product Relations Board Safety Commission Robert R. Bruce ROBERT R. BRUCE General Counsel Federal Communica- tions Commission WU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1979 g06414 155 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2172%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.