Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB

Supreme Court of the United States · 1951 · Administrative Law

340 U.S. 474 (1951)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawsubstantial evidenceAdministrative Procedure ActTaft-Hartley ActNLRBwhole recordjudicial reviewtrial examiner

Facts

The NLRB found that Universal Camera had discharged an employee because he gave testimony under the Wagner Act and ordered reinstatement with back pay, along with a cease-and-desist order against similar discrimination. In the court of appeals, the employer challenged enforcement, arguing in part that review should account for the trial examiner's factual findings where the Board had rejected them. The Second Circuit enforced the order and viewed the scope of review as unaltered by recent legislation. The Supreme Court addressed the proper standard of judicial review and the significance of the examiner's report in that review.

Issue

After the Administrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, what scrutiny must courts of appeals apply when reviewing NLRB fact findings for substantial evidence? In particular, must the reviewing court consider the whole record, including evidence detracting from the Board's view and the trial examiner's report, even when the Board rejected the examiner's findings?

Rule

Under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, a reviewing court must determine whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Substantiality must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the evidence's weight, and the examiner's report is part of the record that must be given such probative force as it intrinsically commands. Although courts may not displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, they must not abdicate their conventional judicial function and must set aside Board findings when the whole record clearly precludes the Board's decision from being justified.

🔒

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.

In Cleveland, the Fair Work Relations Board found that Lakefront Tool & Die fired Nora Patel for protected workplace complaints. On review, the court of appeals pointed to three supervisor statements supporting retaliation and enforced the order without discussing several contemporaneous emails and payroll records suggesting Nora was selected in a broader reduction in force.

Under the governing standard, was the court's review proper?

Explanation. The proper inquiry is whether the agency's finding is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record, not whether supporting evidence looks substantial in isolation. Contradictory documents and other evidence detracting from the agency's position must be considered. But the court does not conduct de novo factfinding.