Sugarman v. Forbragd
| Decision Date | 11 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22102.,22102. |
| Citation | 405 F.2d 1189 |
| Parties | Harry SUGARMAN, Appellant, v. Jack B. FORBRAGD et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George A. McKray (argued) and Sheldon I. Balman (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Arthur A. Dickerman (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Robert N. Ensign, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before JOHNSEN,* MERRILL and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant seeks by suit for injunction to review an order of the Food and Drug Administration excluding from import as adulterated certain damaged coffee beans.
In entering its order the Food and Drug Administration was acting for the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare pursuant to the terms of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 381(a).1 The question presented is whether (absent arbitrary or capricious action which clearly is lacking here) such an order excluding material from import under § 381(a) is subject to judicial review. The District Court held that it was not.2 We agree.
Appellant contends that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-558, 701-706, applies to require agency notice and hearing and provide judicial review. By the terms of that Act, § 701(a) (2), it is not to apply where "agency action is committed to agency discretion by law."
In our judgment that is the situation here; by 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) exclusion from import as there provided is committed to the discretion of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
We note that the prescribed procedure suggests final discretionary authority in the Secretary. His judgment must be accepted and acted upon by the Secretary of the Treasury. Further, the language of the section "if it appears" suggests discretion to be tested by a standard of arbitrariness rather than error. These suggestions in our view are compellingly borne out by the fact that the Secretary's judgment may be founded solely upon his examination of the material in question.3 While the superficiality of tests and inspections or an arbitrary refusal to accept their results may be appropriate subjects for judicial review, a dispute as to what an examination has established or disclosed is more appropriately left to agency expertise.
The material in question was determined to be adulterated under the statutory definition for the reason that it was found to be "unfit for food." 21 U.S.C. § 342(a) (3). Appellant contends that to preclude arbitrary action the Secretary should promulgate regulations spelling out fitness for food.4 The administration here determined from its examination that due to its damage the material in question was wholly lacking in recognized food values. A determination of unfitness under these facts cannot, in our judgment, be regarded as arbitrary even in absence of more explicit definition by regulation.
Judgment affirmed.
* Hon. Harvey M. Johnsen, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) reads in pertinent part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Shelton Wholesale, Inc.
...constitutionally sufficient due process may be supplied with far less. In any event, the court notes that both Sugarman v. Forbragd, 405 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir.1968), aff'g 267 F.Supp. 817 (N.D.Cal.1967), and Meserey v. United States, 447 F.Supp. 548 (D.Nev.1977), interpreted the Food, Drug, an......
-
Sealed Air Corp. v. US Intern. Trade Com'n
...191 USPQ 272, 279, ITC Inves. No. 337-TA-5 (1976). 13 See for example, Sugarman v. Forbragd, 267 F.Supp. 817 (N.D.Cal.1967) aff'd 405 F.2d 1189 (CA 9 1968), which upheld the discretion given to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §......
-
Suwannee Steamship Company v. United States
...of Labor, supra; People v. United States Department of Agriculture, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 427 F.2d 561 (1970); Sugarman v. Forbragd et al., 405 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S. Ct. 2103, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969); Knight Newspapers, Inc. v. United States, 395 F.2d 35......
-
Ness Inv. Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, 73-2415
...the "committed to agency discretion" exception notwithstanding. Reece v. United States, 455 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1972); Sugarman v. Forbragd, 405 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S.Ct. 2103, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969). In Reece jurisdiction was found to review a claim that......