Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath

Supreme Court of the United States · 1951 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawExecutive Order 9835Attorney General listpatently arbitraryappropriate determinationultra viresmotion to dismissstanding

Facts

The Attorney General placed each petitioner organization on a list of organizations designated under Executive Order No. 9835 and furnished that list to the Loyalty Review Board, which disseminated it to federal departments and agencies. The complaints described the organizations as charitable, civic, or fraternal insurance bodies and alleged serious reputational and economic injury from being publicly designated, later classified as "Communist." Two complaints expressly alleged that the organizations were not within any classification specified in the Executive Order; the third alleged facts incompatible with such classification. On the motions to dismiss, those factual allegations were treated as admitted because the Attorney General chose not to deny them at that stage.

Issue

Whether, taking the complaints' allegations as true on a motion to dismiss, the Attorney General had authority under Executive Order No. 9835 to designate these organizations as Communist or otherwise within Part III, § 3 and furnish those designations to the Loyalty Review Board. Also, whether the organizations could seek declaratory and injunctive relief for that allegedly unauthorized action.

Rule

Where an executive order authorizes the Attorney General to designate organizations only after an 'appropriate investigation and determination,' the order does not authorize a designation that is patently arbitrary or contrary to uncontroverted material facts admitted on the pleadings. An appropriate governmental determination must result from a process of reasoning and cannot be an arbitrary fiat; official action plainly outside the scope of delegated authority may be challenged by those injured through declaratory and injunctive relief.

🔒

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 President issues an executive order directing the Secretary of Public Safety to furnish federal agencies a list of groups that the Secretary, after an "appropriate investigation and determination," designates as extremist or violent. The Secretary lists Harbor Families Relief, a Seattle charity that provides food and rent assistance, and the charity sues in federal court alleging it has always operated lawfully and does not fit any listed category; the Secretary moves to dismiss without denying those allegations.

Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?

Explanation. The majority held that where an executive order permits designation only after an "appropriate investigation and determination," the order does not authorize a designation that is patently arbitrary on the face of admitted pleadings. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the complaint's factual allegations are treated as true. If those allegations depict a lawful organization incompatible with the listed categories, dismissal is improper because the complaint states an ultra vires claim. The Court did not rest on a general constitutional hearing requirement.