Cudahy Packing Company of Louisiana v. Holland (315 U.S. 357)/Dissent Douglas

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissenting.

We have here the narrow but important question as to the power of the Administrator to delegate his power to issue a subpoena. That problem does not involve questions as to the scope of the subpoena issued or the fact that it required documents in Shreveport to be produced at New Orleans. Statements in the opinion of the Court as to the 'oppressive use' of the subpoena introduce issues wholly irrelevant to the single question before us. Those issues would not be changed one iota had the Administrator himself signed this subpoena. And if the policy underlying the opinion is a desire to see a more restrictive and discriminating use of the subpoena power, the requirement that the Administrator alone exercise the power seems idle. For his duties under this Act are manifold and far flung. The Act extends to thousands upon thousands of persons and businesses. It is estimated that the Act covers 15,500,000 persons employed by more than 360,000 employers in 48 States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Administrator has 13 regional directors and one territorial representative. He has about 2200 employees. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1941, there were 41,399 complaints received, 48,449 plant inspections made, 1,749 cases litigated, 6000 subpoenas issued.

The problem of enforcement is intricate and exacting. If the Administrator must issue subpoenas, it seems hardly likely that he can do anything but sign them in blank. If he tried to do anything but formulate the general policy to govern the exercise of the subpoena power, he could perform little more than ministerial acts. Certainly he cannot be expected to relieve his regional offices of all questions as to where hearings shall be held, what documents are necessary for a hearing, what asserted violations should be investigated, which employer will make full and free disclosure, which will act only under the conpulsion of a subpoena, and similar minutiae of daily administration. The Administrator in Washington can hardly exercise an independent judgment as to what the range or course of a particular investigation should be in remote Alaska or Puerto Rico. At least he cannot do so unless the processes of law enforcement are to come to a standstill. Yet those matters control the nature, scope and content of subpoenas issued. Such functions must of necessity rest largely with the investigating and enforcement representatives of this kind of an administrative agency.

It would seem that his functions in this regard must of necessity largely lie in the formulation of a general policy which is to govern the exercise of the subpoena power. He has formulated that policy. The instructions to his subordinates direct a discriminating and sparing use of the subpoena power, a restriction of the scope of subpoenas duces tecum, and a regard for the convenience of those whose records are sought. Delegation is a matter of degree. An authority need not be delegated completely or not at all. It is sufficient that the administrative officer supervise and direct the execution of his duties. So far as the subpoena power is concerned, it would seem that the Administrator has satisfied all statutory demands in this situation by his selection of the limited group which can issue subpoenas, by formulating the policy to guide them, and by ratifying a subpoena issued by his subordinate.

We need not, however, rest on that alone. The subpoena power is the concomitant of the power to investigate. Congress has specifically provided that the power to make and conduct investigations may be delegated. Sec. 11(a), 29 U.S.C.A. § 211(a), provides in part: 'The Administrator or his designated representatives may investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any industry subject to this Act (sections 201-219 of this title), and may enter and inspect such places and such records (and make such transcriptions thereof), question such employees, and investigate such facts, conditions, practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this Act (sections 201-219 of this title), or which may aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this Act (sections 201-219 of this title).'

But now we are told that that power when delegated is only a power to be exercised with the employer's consent; that if resistance is encountered, the only one who can sign the subpoena to obtain that data is the Administrator. The power to delegate the authority to make investigations is certainly the greater of the two powers. In fact, the decision to make the investigation is the significant and controlling one. Once that is made, the decision to issue a subpoena under this Act must rest with the regional offices if it is to be an informed one. Without the subpoena power the power to investigate will often be an empty one.

Hence, in view of the nature of the Administrator's functions and the fact that the power to make investigations can be delegated, the lesser but companion power to delegate the issue of subpoenas should be implied as an incident of the office.

A subpoena of course exerts a coercive influence. So does an investigation. So does all law enforcement. And any power, including the judicial power, may be abused. But as I have said, we have here no question of abuse of power. We cannot assume that the Administrator would haul a business into court where the representative of the Administrator abused the subpoena power. At least we should assume that where the Administrator seeks enforcement of the subpoena and stands behind his subordinate who has issued the subpoena, the subpoena is as much the Administrator's as if he had signed it. Cf. Norris v. United States, 257 U.S. 77, 82, 42 S.Ct. 9, 11, 66 L.Ed. 136.

The reasons for holding that authority to delegate this power is an incident of the office are certainly no less cogent than those underlying the cases which hold that an administrative officer may delegate the function of holding hearings without express statutory authority. As stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 481, 56 S.Ct. 906, 912, 80 L.Ed. 1288, 'Assistants may prosecute inquiries. Evidence may be taken by an examiner.' Such a delegation has been approved under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Southern Garment Mfrs. Ass'n v. Fleming, App.D.C., 122 F.2d 622. Can it be that the power to hold hearings and take evidence is so unimportant as compared with the power to sign subpoenas that the power to delegate the one but not the other can be implied? Can it be that the requirements of 'practicable administrative procedure' (Morgan v. United States, supra, 298 U.S. page 481, 56 S.Ct. page 912, 80 L.Ed. 1288) are relevant and controlling in the one instance but not in the other? Both the power to conduct hearings and the power to issue subpoenas are intermediate steps in administrative procedure. The findings of the examiner are advisory only; this kind of subpoena is a command without legal sanction unless supported by a court decree. But the function of the examiner is not simply ministerial. The role which he fills is significant. The very essence of a fair hearing may depend on his conduct. If that function may be delegated without express statutory authority, it should follow a fortiori that the lesser subpoena power may also be delegated by reason of the requirements of 'practicable administrative procedure.'

The legislative history of this Act does not stand in the way. There is no indication whatsoever that the choice of the House bill as against the Senate bill was in any way influenced by the presence in the latter of an express power of the proposed Board to delegate its subpoena power. The controversy centered on the question as to where administration of the Act should be lodged. See H.Rep. No. 1452, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.; H.Rep. No. 2182, 75th Cong., 3d Sess.; S.Rep. No. 884, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. As a matter of fact, if we are to speculate as to the intent of Congress on this point we must assume that all delegation of the subpoena power was not precluded. The provisions of §§ 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 49, 50, were 'made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Administrator'. § 9, 29 U.S.C.A. § 209. The Federal Trade Commission Act lodges the subpoena power in the Commission. § 9. But it also provides that any member of the Commission may sign subpoenas. § 9. If the Commission has a limited power of delegation, it is hard to see why the Administrator has none. Logical difficulties prevent literal incorporation of the whole of § 9 into the Fair Labor Standards Act. But it certainly is impossible to deduce that a more stringent rule governs the Administrator than the Commission.

Nor can it be inferred that because Congress has expressly granted delegation of the subpoena power under some statutes but not under others that the power may not be implied. The omission of that power in a particular statute may be an historical accident or a matter of design. Whether or not the power can fairly be implied as an incident of a particular office must depend on the nature of that office, the other statutory provisions which govern it, and the legislative history of its creation. The farthest we need go here is to say that where the legislative history is inconclusive the power to delegate is not necessarily precluded.

A requirement that the Administrator himself exercise the subpoena power at this stage of the enforcement of the law may well retard the social and economic program which the Act inaugurated. We should be alert to prevent sheer technicalities from interposing delay in a law enforcement program. If the subpoena power is abused, Congress and the courts are open to remedy it. Meanwhile the subpoena power should be treated sympathetically and regarded as a necessary legal sanction to obtain compliance with the law by those who, having lost the battle in the legislature, seek a delaying action in the courts.

I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice BYRNES, and Mr. Justice JACKSON, join in this dissent.