Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner (1966)

But see Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 n. 1 (2 Cir.1966), aff'd., 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967).

But see Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 n. 1 (2 Cir.1966), aff'd., 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967).

We agree with the District Court and the Court of Appeals that this is not a situation in which consideration of the underlying legal issues would necessarily be facilitated if they were raised in the context of a specific attempt to enforce the regulations. [1] Rather, "to the extent that they purport to apply premarketing requirements to broad categories like finished products and non-coloring ingredients and define the hair-dye exemption, they appear, prima facie, to be s…

In the context of the present case we need only say that such inconvenience is speculative and we have been provided with no information that would support an assumption that much weight should be attached to this possibility. 3 The statute and regulations are not explicit as to whether review would lie, as Judge Friendly suggested, 2 Cir., 360 F.2d, at 687, to a court of appeals under §§ 701(f) and 706(d) of the Act, or to a district court as an appeal from the Commissioner…

The statute and regulations are not explicit as to whether review would lie, as Judge Friendly suggested, 360 F. 2d, at 687, to a court of appeals under §§ 701 (f) and 706 (d) of the Act, or to a district court as an appeal from the Commissioner’s “final order,” 21 CFR § 130.26 , under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

C.1975), Appendix (App.) at 47a. .Independent Bankers Ass’n v. Smith, 402 F.Supp. at 208 (footnote omitted), citing Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684 (2d Cir. 1966), aff’d, 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967) and National Motor Freight Ass’n v. United States, 268 F.Supp. 90 (D.D.C. 1967), aff’d, 393 U.S. 18 , 89 S.Ct. 49 , 21 L.Ed.2d 19 (1968). . 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 , 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681, 691 (1967). .

Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 at 679 (2d Cir. 1966). .

Whether all of this amounts to mootness, or ripeness, or lack of aggrievement on Snoho-mish's part is not of great concern for "the critical issue is apt to be less a matter of standing or of actual controversy than of the advisability of reviewing an administrative rule prior to its application in a specific factual situation.” Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684 (2d Cir.1966) (Friendly, J.), aff'd, 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967).

In deciding whether judicial review must await application of the rule in the concrete setting of an enforcement action, the Supreme Court adopted Judge Friendly's formulation in Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684 (2d Cir.1966) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 156 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring): there must be an evaluation of "both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hard…

In deciding whether judicial review must await application of the rule in the concrete setting of an enforcement action, the Supreme Court adopted Judge Friendly’s formulation in Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684 (2d Cir.1966) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 156 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring): there must be an evaluation of “both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hard…

Faced with the argument advanced here by appellants we stated in Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 686 (2d Cir. 1966), affd., 387 U.S. 167 , 87 S.Ct. 1526 , 18 L.Ed.2d 704 (1967), “Neither do we think anything is to be gained by an attempt at comprehensive review of the decisions; the many cases in this area are not truly reconcilable . . . .” We have come to recognize that, if the administrative process is to be practically effective, specific regulations promulg…

Faced with the argument advanced here by appellants we stated in Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 686 (2d Cir. 1966), affd., 387 U.S. 167 , 87 S.Ct. 1526 , 18 L.Ed.2d 704 (1967), "Neither do we think anything is to be gained by an attempt at comprehensive review of the decisions; the many cases in this area are not truly reconcilable ...." We have come to recognize that, if the administrative process is to be practically effective, specific regulations promulgate…

The district judge stated that the only thing which gave him pause was a remark by the writer in Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684, n. 8 (2 Cir. 1966), aff’d, 387 U.S. 158 , 167, 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967), that in the review of rules “a district court may be in a better position than a court of appeals to carry out fact finding . . .” We agree that this afforded no ground for a different decision.

Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 307-308 , 64 S.Ct. 559 , 88 L.Ed. 733 (1944); Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 683-684 (2 Cir. 1966), aff’d 387 U.S. 167 , 87 S.Ct. 1526 , 18 L.Ed.2d 704 (1967), and Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 139-141 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); cf. Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245, 256 , 67 S.Ct. 1552 , 91 L.Ed. 2030 (1947). 5 Moreover, a consideration of the legislative history of the Financial Institutions Supervis…

Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 307-308 , 64 S.Ct. 559 , 88 L.Ed. 733 (1944); Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 683-684 (2 Cir. 1966), aff'd 387 U.S. 167 , 87 S.Ct. 1526 , 18 L.Ed.2d 704 (1967), and Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 139-141 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 681 (1967); cf. Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245, 256 , 67 S.Ct. 1552 , 91 L.Ed. 2030 (1947). 5 Moreover, a consideration of the legislative history of the Financial Institutions Supervi…

Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 43-44 , 76 S.Ct. 569 , 100 L.Ed. 910 (1956); FCC v. American Broadcasting Co., 347 U.S. 284 , 74 S.Ct. 593 , 98 L.Ed. 699 (1954); Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc. v. Gardner, supra note 11. 15 .

Thus for purposes of this motion unless there is a showing of a “substantiality of present or immediate harm,” Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 685 (2 Cir. April 13, 1966), viewed in light of the remedies available at the hearing, review in this court of the administrative action assailed here will be precluded, as it would be under similar circumstances in the court of appeals.

This court accepts with alacrity the authoritative view that it is not profitable to explore the' asserted distinction, Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 686 (2d Cir. 1966), aff’d, 387 U.S. 167 , 87 S.Ct. 1526 , 18 L.Ed.2d 704 (1967), which is “fuzzy at best.” Shapiro, The Choice of Rulemaking or Adjudication in the Development of Administrative Policy, 78 Ilarv.L.Rev. 921, 930, 959-60 (1965).

The only thing that gives me pause with respect to the “adequacy” of Court of Appeals review is Judge Friendly’s comment, in another context, that “a district court may be in a better position than a court of appeals to carry out fact finding.” See Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684, n. 8 (2 Cir. 1966), aff’d, 387 U.S. 168, 167 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967).

The Court further said at page 144, 87 S.Ct. at page 1513 : “Against this background we think it quite apparent that the special-review procedures provided in § 701(f), applying to regulations embodying technical factual determinations, were simply intended to assure adequate judicial review of such agency decisions, and that their enactment does not manifest a congressional purpose to eliminate judicial review of other kinds of agency action.” and in the above quotation cit…

In Toilet Goods Ass’n Inc. v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 360 F.2d 677, 684-685 (2d Cir. 1966), he said: The appropriateness of passing judgment on the validity of an administrative regulation prior to its application to particular facts depends on such factors as how far the rule represents the definitive position of the agency and the extent to which the challenge raises a clearcut legal issue susceptible of judicial solution without reference to f…

See Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 , 679 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1967), Aff'd, 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967).

See Avista, 95 F.E.R.C. p 61,114 at 61,322. 5 Whether all of this amounts to mootness, or ripeness, or lack of aggrievement on Snohomish's part is not of great concern for "the critical issue is apt to be less a matter of standing or of actual controversy than of the advisability of reviewing an administrative rule prior to its application in a specific factual situation." Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677, 684 (2d Cir. 1966) (Friendly, J.), aff'd, 387 U.S. 158 (19…

See note 9 supra. See also Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 , 679 n. 1 (2d Cir.), aff'd, 387 U.S. 158 , 167, 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967); Byse & Fiocca, Section 1361 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962 and "Nonstatutory" Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action, 81 Harv.

See note 9 supra. See also Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 , 679 n. 1 (2d Cir.), aff’d, 387 U.S. 158 , 167, 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967); Byse & Fioeca, Section 1361 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962 and “Nonstatutory” Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action, 81 Harv.

See, e.g., Toilet Goods Ass'n., Inc. v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 , 679 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1966), aff'd, 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967); Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1966); Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 278 F.2d 912 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894 , 81 S.Ct. 225 , 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960); Powelton Civic Home Owners Ass'n. v. HUD, 284 F.Supp. 809, 819-820 (E.D.Pa.1968).

See, e. g., Toilet Goods Ass’n., Inc. v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 , 679 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1966), aff’d, 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967); Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1966); Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 278 F.2d 912 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894 , 81 S.Ct. 225 , 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960); Powelton Civic Home Owners Ass’n. v. HUD, 284 F.Supp. 809, 819-820 (E.D.Pa.1968).

See, e. g., Toilet Goods Ass’n., Inc. v. Gardner, 360 F. 2d 677, 679, n. 1 (2d Cir. 1966), aff’d, 387 U.S- 158, 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 697 (1967); Capeadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1966); Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 278 F.2d 912 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 364 U.S. 894 , 81 S.Ct. 225 , 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960); Powelton Civic Home Owners Ass’n. v. HUD, 284 F.Supp. 809, 819-820 (E.D.Pa.1968).

See Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 (2nd Cir. 1966), aff’d 387 U.S. 158 , 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 697 (1967).

See also Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 677 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. granted, 385 U.S. 813 , 87 S.Ct. 81 , 17 L.Ed.2d 53 (1966); United States v. State of New York, 160 F.2d 479 (2d Cir. 1947) (dissenting opinion of L.