# Brief for American Farm Bureau Federation — Mitchell v. Budd > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386408_0170%3A15 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for American Farm Bureau Federation - **Published:** January 1, 1956 - **Citation:** 350 U.S. 473 ## Text % IN THE Supreme Court af the United States — -Ocrosen Tens, A. DB. 1955 : Sees a) ‘a ; No. 278 > J AMES P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States ‘Department of Labor, ? 7 Petitioner, ee VS. JOSEPH T. BUDD, JR., and FLORENCE W. BUDD, . CO-partners, doing business as J. ‘T. BUDD, JR., AND COMPANY, KING EDWARD TOBACCO COMPANY OF FLORIDA, and MAY TCP ACCO COMPANY. Ne sspondé nts. Owx Wrer or > CERTIORARI TO. THE U NITED STATES Cocrt: or. APPEALS FOR THE Porte ‘Crrevrr. Brief for Rictinen ‘Farm Bureau Federation ; as Amicus: Curiae. _MARTIN BURNS, 608 South Dearborn Street Chicago 5, Minois, ’ HArrison 79034. ALLEN LAUTERBACH, Merchandise Mart - Koom 2200, Chicage 34, Htineis, ; Michigan 2-1280, Attorneys for American Farm Bureau Federation. Midwest Law Pri inting Co..- 326. N. Michi gan Ave a see . theta ob ‘SS ie . Chicago Rs INDEX. - _ 3 PAGE Statement oo... VDP tos Weiner: we ee ; ; Argument ote eagle eee fee a ei I, SuMMary op ARGUMENT: Bulking of tobaeco * is il practice ‘within the ‘definition ‘of agric ulture. Ander _Seetion- Eh} oe of the Ac and © iherefore employees, engaged | such bulking oper rations are exempt from w age. and houg provisions under Section” i340) (6). a (a) Section 3 (f) contains a broad, compre. hensive, and far-reaching definition of the . ere" etre Te 3. (h) Legislative history of Sections 13 4a) (6) ‘and 3 (f) confirms that tobacco bulking oper rations were intended to be exempt . 3 ‘(e). Bulking is an. essential farming practice in preparing tobaced for market 6: (d) Exemption is. not destroved because, bulk- ing practice is thnerconsuming, requires Employées engaged in tobacee bulking sare ex- empted under‘both Sections P38. (a) (6) aid TS fa} (10) of the Act. SOUS RTE Se ~~ ~~ ‘ . (a) As applied te the facts in! this ease, -. «Section 13 ta) (6) exempts the eniplo sees .° concerneik herein because the Aet clearly “provides for such exemption. A eA =a Valuables equipment, and knowledge of ee operation PETA Be eo MY a ee EINE TI Pe ce 4 fe} -Phe pariiicnt OF Tah +h: is Tehl the —ebIvities in question to he eXempt pnder ee ec Section RRS 3 RS} uae senit ens snimtovacngenns ee * & = Py ii (bh) Balking of tohuces Is an eXemipt operation : under Section 3 ta). 10). a ji tu) Regulations of the. \dministrator defining: “areaq‘cof production are not within the : F935 plainly designated, intention of. Congress vs ban . id : . z . i rer . : : ~anedsare therefore meconsistent with the Act i2 : . : @ Whee ; i eee Svem ( ‘onelusion 0.000 inch eileen Is. ween lain, ce eid : x : , ; Tere Ota hed ° a ee : ! 7 % oe ° 5 o io - : | Ne ' j » CITATIONS. ° : “2a : , : : : , A ~ Cases: : 5 ‘ Addison v. Holly Hill Kruit pot Ce mee /- cme poslcoeticeie 7,12, 18,45,17 Barron Coop. Creamery v. Wi We hea 140 F. a 4S4 | ed Commonwealth v, ‘Grunseit, 67 CLLR. 5 ie: - 16 De int v. Pinehbeck, 4s. F. 2d. B82. . ee me 8 ; Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation to. ; Met ‘omb,\ oe - 337 BLS. 150 oe SEES nO PY Ere 4 zs Lynch y. Kea duibine Co., 967.U. 8. “ti es a : Marie av. Waialua Agric ultural ('9,, ; 340. U. s, 4 6" ' National Labor Re dation® Boa v. John. ‘amipbell, “Ine. 159 F.2d 186 28 le eet 7 Redlands Foothill Groves v. Jacobs, 30 FL Supp. DUE: Sinockcecanen, sida ssa . 7 . ~ %. B : % . t. p » -a es : > Me ir Statutes : = Pair Labor Standards Aet af 1928) 4s sinagstii te} : emmys Wt) ¥, a” se : : . 4, | of0. 532 ‘Stat. LW os amended” e) 726 G3 Stat. G1 (20-US.C. wt? | 4 4 Se et , , ef Py . » : ec. ob (f) : ; 5 ee, 12. (az) (4G): : oS 10 See: 49. Ge) C00) oo 80 11,13, 16..17- . . . : LP E } ce Fair Labor Standar’s Amendments of S949 * . ‘ ; fis 63. Stat. 910; °°. me Mee. 36 {ey 22... Siecle a eauaaert ~ Miscellaneous : ST Cong Ree. : aire ce Pt ne es a RG Pp. et 0O eg a - pone | 4 P7658 ;......: : 2 Sy cue ee Media, G3 Cong Ree. : : | ae P. Tae: = end ie EP - ) : n ee Re: ee one ii rng MM the ee eae ee nS) pe So I Pehle ce ee se gg Pp. 9162-91634 | a, ’ Ip, Po OPS esha Be an kee ae . Qea7 ae . . — , pease or sr sat . "tad 4 , } Pe aes Sa Oy) Cong. Ree. : : ee | \ Pie a 3 P. 14869... Souteciieeasna ee ae tA. Seles eer oem Br ae rs Ip. -TAS69-TASTO A St ei ee ee to if, Rep.tNo, 1452, Toth Cong, Ist Sess. pp. 4, de» Baus | Ree sen H. Rep. No, 2182, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., p. - eats 3 Interpretative Bulletin No. 14, Wage and Hour ) - Division, Departinent of Labor, August 1939 _ Sl EL Rea ENS 2 orang Fe See RO SONU Pag BIG 32 0 U.S. Census of Poputatio’ 1950 Volume IL... 9. a 14 7 - e ; . . * R . ’ Pe ; a ig \ Pay J - N | 5 : & \ >> s e e 5 i Ly" Fee P| abor Standards Act, for. Agriv ulture, Restrictions upon. | application. of these exemptions ‘have far reaching effects win adloptitg the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress . “never7intended that the W age and Hour Division of. the— Department ofgLabor would control, direct, have dominion “over, or have any effect upon agricultural operations or pursuits. Petitioner's brief clearly | shows an unauthorized _ attempt by the: Administrator to ac complish this improper objective, - ; r > As used in the Petitioner's brie = Be references will the King Fdward and Miiy Record, ee % “\ 5 - se ae o. t a Fe be to the Budd Record, Ww hile “RK references will as - ARGUMENT. Se Bulking of tobacco is*a practice within the definition of agriculture under Section 3 (f) of the Act and therefore employees engaged in such bulking operations are exempt © _- pe: formed’ bvea farmer as 3 an indidont to or in conjunetion with such farming Operations, iichading preparation for market,’ within the meaning of Section F (Ff). RK 93. The langus ty ce of Seetion x ft) could not hie mofe clear tovevines an intent to exempt all’ activities performed | the fartuer or onthe farna in connection with erowing and om arketing the farm? s crops. : ~ ritetically every farmer in the U nitha State ‘sy, Whether large’ or small, is concerned with preparing an. agnent- a ; ° . eo as + . -e —j— fural or horticultural commodity for market. Almost all fariners, as part of ‘their harvesting operations, haul- their crops té a storage place ar a processing plant located either on or off the farm or to- some market: A: great many -of them conduct extensive processing’ operations upon their own crops. Mor example, many fruit and vegetable " farme rs pack and: can their own. fruits and vegetables; many cotton farmers xm “their own cotton; “many poultry -and hog t armers slaughter and dress ‘their poultry and hogs. “The apple t armer, for example, may haul his ¢pples to.a storage place on the t farnggor he iat, sort, wrap and pac ‘k the apples and otherwise prepare them’ for market or he may-process the applés in ene ‘form or another. “hi naquestionably, When so performeyl, these are oper rations performed by a farmer or on a& fatmeas an ine ident to or In vonjunction with farming operations, Farmers Reser. row cand Trrination Co.; v. Mek ‘omb, 5 SY C. SS. 150, 760, +66, note. 1h; Redlands Foothill Groves vy. Jacobs. 30 BS ‘Supp. 995, . [O06 : Danni: v. -Pinchbeck. 158 K (Gy 882, 883: Addison et al v. Hoitly Hill Prat: Products. Inc.. 322 UL S. 612;- National Labor Relations Board v. John Camphell, Inc., lov F. Ls TS6, =.” Degen ; a) rae | Exemption is not destroyed because bulking prac- tice is time-consuming, requires valuable ei acme - and knowledge of operation. The Petitioner argaes that tobacco Hulkinge is a cou plie ated, tedious, diftic ult and. even sclentiie operation. as distinguished from the actual! growing of tobacco. We ennnot agree. In faet, tohaceo bulking is an easier, single task than the actual production of the erop on Tarnis. According. to the Reeord, nothing is added to. or taken from the tebaceo during this hulking opesation, except ~ 8 ot Ge through the natural process of evaporation and fermenta- tion, other than sprinkling with water or kasing (RIX 52). The contention: of the Petitioner that the bulking of tebaceo requires its mucheas 12 months Wane is not de- terminative, or of any importance, to the questions ‘ine volved in this proceeding. Stich period of tine is no ahore. than is required for the actual growing or. production on farms of many agric ‘ultural prodacts. Considering this type of argument by the Petitioner; we would not” be surprised to see the ‘Administrator claiming that the actual growing of? Tape G2 shade. leat tobaceo is not an exe mmpted agric ultural activity bee Que it is grown in fields ¢omple tely enc losed and ¢overed: with cheesed loth shade. Pe eS _(e) AS ae oer The Department of Labor has held the ‘activities in question to be exempt under Section 13. (a) (6). oe Bulle ‘tin, No 14, issued in August, 1939, “H. Labor Law Reporter P4488), in construing thie agrie eels exemption, stated in paragraph 10 ¢h): “(b) The terny ‘preparation for market’ must be treated differently with respect to various, comniodi- ties. The following activities, atone olliers, wher performed by a farmer, seem to be *inekided within the term: Yass A dienes Me et Ss 1 Grain, seed, and forage crops: — Weighing, -bin- ning, stocking, cleaning, grading, shelling, serting. packing@and staring, a ° 4 I ruits and vegetables, Assembling, I Ninny, -) | ripening, cleaning, grading, sorting, drving. presery « ia e Ing, packene, stormy, and cunning. 9° 3. Nuts (pecans, walntts, peanats, sete.) Grad- ing: cracking, sbelling. cleaning, sertings packings and storing. Unshelled muts: gud operfariving the sain e ae —I9— « eperations except cracking and shelling, upon the - hut meats, : > . 4.0 Sugar.—-Manufactiaring raw sugar, cane, or maple svrup and molasses. + Set IRE, Sires - . & . ? a ; o .Khegs, ‘Handling, cooing, rrading, and pack- Ing. * : : Het : ; . . . 6... Wools, Gfading and packing. os i 7. Dairy prodavts.Salting, «printing, wrapping, packing and storing buttey: ripening, molding, wrap ping, packing, and storing cheese; and canning or - packing any other dairy product. aye ea 8 Cetton— Weighing, gimiing, and storing cotton: hauling, delinting,. cleaning, sacking, and: storing cot- tonseed. d "ass © “9, Nursery stock, Handling. Wrapping, packag- ine and grading. 3 | : | ut ero TO. ~ Tohaceo.—Handiing, ie E bulking, strip- ping, tving, sorting.” stemming, packing, and -storing, It. Livesteek.— Handling and loading, - eae 12: Poultrys Culling, grading, coopime, and Joad- See Sg ee Be rake ‘ 13. eae eres extracting, heafitg, rip- ening, removing comb, straining, cleaning, grinling, weighing, blending, packing, and storige. ; 14. Pur.—Removing the pelt. serdpmg. drying, patting on boards and’ packing.” . orate pee. According to a press release. issued by the Department a at the same time as Paterprefative Balletin No. 14, the : Department's interpretations ,of the agricultural exemp- ; Syern in the Act were tiace only after lengthy conterences With representatives of employers, emplovees and other et ost ‘ @baaa-. ts tien! erestiel parties: Authorities nf the Conited States /-De- artinent of Agrieultire were also consulted. Mitch time was devoted by the Department's attorneys to a study of lacticls . . . nd . . ‘y? ve bictary ot Seoteon Ta (4): 1%) Che Denart- oat ae 6: also had its economists tunke, economie studies jn —]0— order to assist in a proper determination of the scope of 5 the exemption. It was only after these lengthy investicn tions and diseussions ‘that the’ Department announced it opinions on the. sufijeet. Such opinions Were widely | cir. enlated: through Interpretative Bulletin No, T4. press releases and othec, releases to the yariows labor law pub * lieations. ° ; ' : - Since “bulking” was listed under “Pobaceo™ (item 10), © tobacce farmers, have had every reason tog believe that : this) was one of the exempt activities, even ‘within the Adininistrator’s resthicted application of the exemption provisions of the Net. Pasay las i IT. Employees engaged in ‘tobacco bulking are exempted under both sections 13 (a) (6) and 13 (a) (10) of the Act. (a) et As applied to the facts in this case, Section 13 (&) (6) ‘exempts the. employees concerned herein because the Act clearly provides for such exemption. >, x -. Authoritatively paraphrased, the Act provides that the provisions for. tminiman wages “and maximum hours. shali not apply to any enrplosee engaged. itr agriculture. “Application of the statutory detation of “aericulture to tobacco bulking has alrdady been dikeussed in this brief. 7 (See supra, p. 6) 0° sy Bulking of tobacco is an exempt cperatian under ‘Section 13 (a) (10). . pee - We pcunnot: agree with: the Petitioner’s arguinent that’ bulking Of tobacco is tore of an INGUSEPIAP process than by Congressman. Diertidnn dinring consideratron of |i) an agricultiiral operation and, therefore, is: nat coverce j Dis | under Section Ib ¢tay(lay |. i — oe ee Phe operat LNs en umieratty: “doin this: Seetion (eg. 1p hi ind ee ing, pac king. storing, processing, drying’), cover at overs comprehensive field in agriculture. This was. obviously intended ty Conuress.- e (dn Mav 24. LOSS, thie following stafements Were minde-' . 4 a 5 . é : : 4 ns zs ae } . arnendiment { W hich daeesine the ces CMIpTems Section | (a) (10) ter the W age and Hour Sill): : iia x | bill ‘is aiined- at, sub-standard. libor cond? tions, and | surbanit that any Member of this’ House who is familiar with the kind of institution that this amendment J have offered is ‘aimed at will agree With me when | say that sub-stoadard labor condi t} Ons do. petenist in these inestit dons Tn yan arene * ment-I inserted in fle Record yesterday Tinelided — ¢& the. word ‘procéssins.” [ éall attention to the fact that in the pending amendment that. word is stricken: out. T struck. it out’fer the reason that Some Mer. bérs thought that proeéssing would inelides the mak ing of cotton nnd wool inte. textiles, and‘ pulibe ro into. , finished. prodiets, nd a loner dist ot thins of that kind, “The amendrrent shave offered iInelieles | only the first processing of things of that kind. 77, amend wr yt af hats a atfered includes only fa’ ref. si processing nit fPriais thant Jorainne aff the farwi. The prnygrtant sport ie thal We farmer paus the Gill fer. this processing.” .¢Fauplasis supplied) (S83. Cong Ree FH > eee See ake Daring cofsiderition bythe S nate athe TOGO An ond: Mics th thie Net, Semitor Pepper nude the falbew mts ) 2 es " ee ° ee . Of 2008 oF greater population RE tas dts regogenized that in thease eNerpeticnim cv ipielas herein iW . shedreray Tore Pe eee “ae N sheen t ved etn d cas all TPMT) SSP SSPE Ee ee ee ACTION, the » TLRS =] iii higiis : } , ** . . i perepeekly Wert Tihied aVietivesize Qu the taelors reteyint . : - ; ‘ be) _ , ad ’ te the general purposes of the. Net, Addisun +. H / - «4 ert : a é ee ayes j ‘ cee Abi yu "Produ tates. ay Be? i &: Hua, HLowever, his ; rowel and idence aol 6 \ pression are nlwavs: . hy. the rath: Ante Loy Courts, nS Mike emipyu sized : this. (rsugrt m the Helly HM ease We ban neither «Pre ie - her cont Pact the’ iteneted exeniption mred. The legislation bigtory of -tha: Ait ‘clonrhy | inedlieates: that it Was meof the intent ot Congress for the Administratar to adopt suet) iL rextrietive. el, Hines ot area vot see tron, “This is qvideneed by. the comments made by Sen” ator: Schwelenthaeh, and “Re “ie - ntas e Bi LOTTA, OM her. Sponsored anientinients provid! iyivy Yor’ the exempt ions withiti he “prea of quroduetion’ whith aere later in corporsited. | omta Seetion 1S: ae C1 of then Wet is The. followin, eunones wep thighele. ha Ni Natt ca tos : -Sehweflenbach> an Jails 30, Ma. In Ans W4 r to ibestion-s voiicern ng fis proposed ‘ivwedicants ; “Mr, Connally : Mr. President PY head Vike to gesk .. the Senator from Washingten a question. Would : not. the effeet oO. ts ame telinemt be te exempt ad industria] watchemaés and packing plants a apple territert? ‘There is nowlimit, Pie condition is that they are packing plants; “and if they are, they ‘are exenipt, eee a gree ; Ml sy Sehwellonbiveh . * if it packing: plant ~ Wwirk hired pen fresh fruits or Veuetabtes, aT their iw OO) nataval state, within the ine uate produ etren arent, if would he exempt, poe oes : Mr. Monnally = *' Ms understanding is that the large s! apple tacking plant am the world ts leuersd cot A : : ' - , . . AN Une heste ,. V a. rigiittm the heartocol a wreat apps *produeeny reyvion fe “Phat oid bee ene riget. ow nile ' Mr Sehwell Hentere! oS ie by vi orb edeorres hry thrid pant os ns deseri be} iy i the rynre ndrient ie weld " Ne PST Crone _ Rye Ws | Fe ba eu ° . . ma ‘ i es = “ z . i wpe e,. EL sey ie i he ‘had: received from Mr. Kdward. (Ne Spb aie en |. on eee ae “During the debate: of: Congressinan Budrttunn’s anemic “ment Fsee supra, pe TL), the res bo hee tibers of the House the» folowing “pagag raphe Tron uw oletter that dent of the Americans Farn mee Fedeaation ; “We believe the bill should. be claitited. se as to dssure Athe exemption af ¢ nn Ba in. such ‘agricul ture, and hortic nlture industries in’ raral areas. 7+ “Failure to exempt these operations when. per- » formed in rural areas Where conditions are so great: ly different from the situation in large industrial and urban. centers, will result: in’ increased casts of pre cessing and handling these products whieh will be. reflected back in lowpr prices .pa tid te farniers, ee b.*: “Cong. Rée. 74027. | ately i = EER ieee Pe a hae : - After reading: the first, paragraph, . Mr Bierman com: mented, ** Phat is ay HV ane ndrie nt takes in. Mr. Poise ranns amendiment was nde pied by alvote of 149. fo 134. 185 Cong, Rec. May 2h, 184s, per, THOT). ‘The bends Z state nie net hy Pt wate Ny hu elt, whach that o> 6 8 - e : , . re ' = I ine beste - j | f wh c me i, hh, = eee 7; on a proder Pray ee pe aah sal apper es? Se ae mm hie of belie fered thas hire pope oe lation “? Woy ave hie ate) "an 140), Mids 1 9%), (Census ait Pespouadeet peony, ra50, Voblame Ele Pe. eds Prrespeet ive: of mars arguments as-to What edraedities or getivities are coveral bey Section bis fail 1, thier crn de Ween ct ttesstiongy Cooney ‘ine the sntent of Congress to inehude Simei) cities as. Warn chester with a population of T2000) as begae within. the ~ “aren of production” bn facet, we can find fo evidences eg that (. ‘UneTess intended: that nN popalatien tds he tread if determining ‘tarea of prodwetion. ty . } 4242 ger : CL OnTarNaiA what trite Peet etientyers qeeorpiergmein, f 03 of. the 2 nil pepitation test’ was motiat issue op tee Mada, All ease. This Courts in holding invalhd , thee Acipines trator’s exclusion of est aublish vents duiving, In excess ol ~*®en eniptovees,. stated: ily them Presi. mie | a ee ies oP 4, ° 86 ‘onéluding, then, that when Congress granted ON éemptions for Workers within the “ared of production” (as defined by thes Administratery’ + eal the. Administrator to the drawing of geographic lines, , aS even thomele he anav take into. neceount all rélevant econotie factors in the elivieesof areas open te lim, thes sc er which Tende, diserigumations within the area defined tre; py vine thee a to plants @& With Jess than: seven empoevecs are With vires) (S227 of es ee “ Say. yale : re . : Se ’ ne ; éF aaa . id oy ie ‘ 51% 7 We recognize the dittieui=w involved an -oprépafing a det’ nition of the “area.of production’: Which will not he ? sub pect tee SO eri Weigh. | eiiis prrekafeare rn Wi as “pointed out ain a letter dated: June 17, TO, Troe the then Secret: ry of "Agriculture to the Chairman of the House Comittee on Edutation finn Labor dur) ine the thine that ‘aaa ‘ra- Jiom was being given to the amendments ot of the: Aet.. This. Zi . 2 sy - » ° letter reads on part as fotlows: To de not othink To need to set ferth in “detail the diftic alfies of G@fining the terme tarea-of produe- ae Eee Departrient is aware of these difficulties, having been consultéd by “the . Secretary of Labor. prior. to the issnanee hy the Adnrinistrater of the / Wage and Hour Division of the present regulations under the Mair Liahor Standards Net dealing with: 2 this. matter, The sithjeet his been one of fairly tex- ' teysive aiseusstin cand correspondence: ‘hefween the Nepartient vf Lanher and the Denartinent af \erienl ae ture. As a pesul! of these diseugsions, Lam in aren. - nent) With the - Administrater -aiait. the “areaslof prodaeteon’ sancept iscin! eremtls dmeguitiible mane hat. corrective action -sheold be taken hy Congress to eliminate these shes Halt ies in the Interest of? sonned pubic pote” as (istry hee, te tT. Mad, = “Thus, the Sew! retary Was saving that-the definition was sedritteadts iyyeenuait: alle o Phe Seeretars “alsp aytvused (‘an -gress that he didi mot favor anv transfer of authority te * i ; . , . ee d vA o . . : ; - 4 — : - @ ° a Ww ‘ewith the pupae ut definition’ of the Administrator. OS _ tion of * “area of production.” é ites that Congress has, in effect, approved thie. ; a during its ‘considers ation #f -the Mair Labor Sta’ . —~16—: teetort the detihi W e- canhot agree with the argument of th petitioner Htriimistia- a) (10) dards Amendinents, The. legislative history af the: ame ny tor’ 's definition since it did. not amend section }35 to the. Act in: 140 shows th: at Congress was not satist Cong. Ree., pp. 14869, T4870. During tlie ‘consider: ation of the ( Conference Report, ‘Sen: itor Pep pper made the fat- lowing statenient: oe : LT think it is the concensus of the opinion of the. conferées that they. hape the Wage and Hour Admin- Istrator will, éonstantly endeavor to improve the defi- nition’ of ‘aren of production,’ and, especially in the case’ of eotton, that. he will are i as her: ally ais possible” (95 Cone: * Ree, Octoher TS. 1949) p.14860), However, aNhis Court “has ‘said, ¢ But it is no war- rant fer extending a statute that experience tinay slisclose ' that at should have made more comprene sive’ (folly Hill’ case 822 ILS. 6 7). The naturat meaning’ of words. exnnotche displ: food by reference to diffiewlties ins admin istration. {( ‘om nionicem thy” e's Grunseit (10497. G7 C2. i. AS, St), ; a of : 4 Vv § eee . pte ig.no Substance in Petitioner's argument thaget a and ratified the Adtninistrator’s defi nition Marea at production when it adopted Seetion 16 (e). of the Fai Rather Stindards Aine ndmet nts of 1049. See grief War Secretary oF Labor, py. 45 Tris (tedp~ vressional action iyeredy concluded. that existing resu ' beitiorms WW /were c@nsistent with the Net ehenld remain in el fert untoss “subsequently amended” by the — Adininis trator. Any ordes-regitation, of} interpretation ineon sistent with provisions of Tair Lahey: Standards Net wus ae ; : / . | . \. cards Net. Bee oy 1 postion fakencby thr Court in She dd Mas Bharl « he considered ns it confirmation or ratification af the’ det nition.” Passage of “the Taq aimendine nts through the kpncre ssonal lewixadtive process Was hof the testine ground for tie peer ty J sutyiieney, “adequa rev-or leaality ' of any regulation of the v Sininistr Hor, According to athe cs dart of Appen Arphic le cist: if) ve history of Neetion |e (a) (10) makes ¢ Ad that its primary “purpose, was to prevent edise ‘rinvination against the smal) farmer, “RB OAGE See Senator Sehwellenbach's comments, 3 RB 164. If the present definition which exéludes towns ot * 25M) er more from the. “avea of production’ is upheld - \ by this Court, then it is @ntirels possible that dhe futuré 3 ourst-of agriculture’ will be in. the direction of larger. ‘ty farming operations, requiring Substantial Hinaneial resoXrees, so that midiny of these activities covered in’ Nee: thon 1K (21) (10) cah De performed on the farm. Continted enforce; Te nt-ef the regulation under the ministre ato definition of “area of production” may. . XY : . well carfse persons, such as the responde mts ere, to "change or mov their tobacco bulking oper: itiens to other locations, bea Ne never authorized -such Major . : ‘ : : “We agree therefore with thy -Cairtuit Court of AY) : ‘seals itt fymeditie | aiAe aid Tie Vitrtatienis tts tas The mute } r. 1 .¢ ber of TT ase S Within the -detined areal Dut’ wean 5" e — ‘not follow that eee in deleting&d thrs part of the a 3 ; P \ * @ Neypressty PNCOY tedes 2 bo Stuf. 920. 9 Thi -action eannet . 4 . ; ; . Martix Burys, -- a a es So tha? i, pe ‘ ea eae spre , oe regulation and, by applying what re “nating cof the definitions exempting, Hloliy Phil's. em- a) from the requirements 1 the Act. Sinee the “PPOVISION | as ‘to the namber. Gf > employees was not wuathorized, the: entire definition of whieli tha ii limita tion Was a part must tall, We can his relly assume that the Administrator-would have definéd ‘aoof pro- daction’, merely by deleting the sant (rovision, had’ he kane cof its invalidity. dt would -be thy shiver. est Guesswork to believe that thy cliningtion: of an im- . portant factor-in the Administrator's Cay ett tion world e have left his equation: unaffected even if he did not here insist upon its impottance, [t is not for ie to . write a definition. That is the Admiistrator’s duty.” (322 U. S. OTS) 2 . ; ee ; _- 7 % ¢ Je ogee - nis Ev, a . oy Cone gaia, ag, 2 ——- re > For the foregoing: reasorrs, thie tobacco bulking: practices* and operations desetibe din this case should be beid to he “exempt frdém the wage and hour provisietrs of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, therefore, the judeme nt of the — Court of Appeals ‘should he sustesned. -* ; er *. - . ad od - ¢ r. ek — Respectfully submitted, » ~ ALLEN, LAU MERBABM, 6 c Attorney sfor is American Farnr Burean Federation, ad its eo : ‘ a ¥ . ° ( ’ v4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386408_0170%3A15. Public record. Not legal advice.