Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Administrative Law

Administrative Lawadministrative sanctionsjudicial reviewagency discretionPackers and Stockyards ActSecretary of Agriculturesuspensionuniformity of sanctions

Facts

Respondent operated a stockyard in Arkansas as a registered market agency under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Department investigations in 1964, 1966, and 1967 uncovered underweighing of consigned livestock, and respondent was informally warned to correct the problem. A 1969 investigation revealed additional underweighing, and after a hearing the hearing examiner found respondent intentionally weighed livestock at less than true weight, issued false scale tickets and accountings, and paid consignors based on false weights. The Judicial Officer adopted those findings, entered cease-and-desist and recordkeeping orders, and imposed a 20-day suspension in light of respondent's disregard of prior warnings.

Issue

Whether the court of appeals exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review by setting aside the Secretary of Agriculture's 20-day suspension of respondent's registration. More specifically, the question was whether the suspension was unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.

Rule

When Congress entrusts an administrative agency with selecting the means of achieving statutory policy, the relation of remedy to policy is peculiarly for administrative competence. A reviewing court may not overturn the agency's choice of sanction unless the sanction is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact, and a sanction authorized by statute is not invalid merely because it is more severe than sanctions imposed in other cases.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Grain Licensing Board found that Red Mesa Feed Brokers, a licensed commodities intermediary in Wichita, Kansas, repeatedly failed to maintain transaction records required by statute. After two prior warning letters, the Board ordered a cease-and-desist directive and suspended the firm's license for 15 days under a statute authorizing suspension of any licensee who violates the Act for a reasonable specified period.

On review, a federal court agrees the violations occurred but believes a warning and compliance plan would have been enough. What is the best disposition?

Explanation. When Congress entrusts an agency with selecting the means of achieving statutory policy, the remedy-policy relationship is primarily for the agency. A reviewing court may not overturn the sanction merely because it prefers a lesser remedy; it may do so only if the sanction is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact. That rule governs here because the suspension is authorized by statute and supported by repeated violations after warnings. (Derived from Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Co., Inc. (1973).)