Thomas v. County Office Committee of Cameron County

• Decision Date: 18 March 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-B-25,71-B-23.
• Citation: 324 F. Supp. 1271
• Parties: John H. THOMAS and Oliver N. Kilgore, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OFFICE COMMITTEE OF CAMERON COUNTY and the County Office Committee of Willacy County, Texas, Defendants. Roy JONES et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rafael GUERRA et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

324 F. Supp. 1271

John H. THOMAS and Oliver N. Kilgore, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OFFICE COMMITTEE OF CAMERON COUNTY and the County Office Committee of Willacy County, Texas, Defendants.

Roy JONES et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rafael GUERRA et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 71-B-25, 71-B-23.

United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Brownsville Division.

March 18, 1971.

Thomas G. Sharpe, Jr., Brownsville, Tex., for plaintiffs, John H. Thomas and Oliver N. Kilgore.

Garland F. Smith, Smith, McIlheran & Jenkins, Weslaco, Tex., and Neal King, Hill, King & White, Mission, Tex., for plaintiffs.

Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., William L. Bowers and Charles Wolfe, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for defendants.

Morris Atlas, Atlas, Hall, Schwartz, Mills, Gurwitz & Bland, McAllen, Tex., Attys. for Intervenor Jones and others.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NOEL, Presiding Judge.

In these cases plaintiffs sue to enjoin actions of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation County Committees (hereafter County Office Committees) of Cameron, Willacy and Hidalgo Counties, Texas.¹ On March 5, 1971, the Court ordered that parties aggrieved by the decisions of the County Office Committees should exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to the procedures enumerated in 7 U.S.C. § 1363 (1938) as amended (1951) before urging their claims in Federal Court. Pursuant to this Order the plaintiffs presented their complaints to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Review Committee (hereafter Review Committee) having appellate jurisdiction over the County Office Committees in litigation here. See: 7 U.S.C. § 1363 (1938) as amended (1951); and 7 C.F.R. §§ 771.2-711.27 (1970) as authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 1375 (1938) as amended (1941). The Review Committee met on March 9, 1971, to review de novo the validity of the County Office Committees' determinations. That same day after hearing the argument of counsel and receiving the evidence, the Review Committee entered the following decision as its findings of fact and conclusions of law affirming the actions of the agencies below:

The Review Committee convened to review the decisions of the County Committees of Cameron and Hidalgo Counties hereby unanimously found the following:

There was a demand in Cameron County for the cotton acreage allotments which were the subject of applications for out of county transfer and therefore the decision of the Cameron County Committee not to permit out of county transfers and to deny said applications was proper and that decision is affirmed.

The Hidalgo County Committee properly found that there was no demand in Hidalgo County for cotton acreage allotments and therefore the decision of the Hidalgo County Committee to permit out of county transfers was proper and that decision is affirmed.

/s/ Raymond Hindes Chairman Review Committee /s/ Harold H. Wakehouse Vice-Chairman Review Committee /s/ Richard P. Horton Member Review Committee

Unfortunately, the decision is couched in ultimate and conclusionary terms and fails to articulate the basic factual findings which the Review Committee had to make in order to reach its determinations. The decision also fails to enumerate the legal criteria which the Review Committee applied.

After examining the transcripts of the proceedings before the Review Committee, the Court is unable to determine the legal or factual basis of its decision. During the March 9, 1971 hearing counsel representing the contesting parties were unable to agree upon the meaning of the term "demand" and the factual determinations to be made by the Review Committee.

Since the Review Committee failed to enunciate the legal principles to which it applied the evidence adduced at the hearing and failed to divulge the basic factual determinations which it made, the Court is forced upon its own motion to remand the cases to the Review Committee. If this Court were to now attempt to review the propriety of this administrative decision, the Court would be called upon to speculate and to imply the basic facts and law which the Review Committee used in reaching its determinations. This would be impermissible. Such speculation would in effect require the Court to engage in independent de novo fact finding. It is a basic maxim of federal administrative law that a Court reviewing an agency's determinations cannot engage in independent fact finding, but instead must limit its review to the ascertainment of whether the agency correctly applied the law, and the ascertainment of whether there is substantial evidence in the agency's record to support its factual determinations. Jones v. Hughes, 400 F.2d 585, 590 (8th Cir. 1968); Chandler v. David, 350 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1965); cert. denied 382 U.S. 977, 86 S.Ct. 548, 15 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966); Crolley v. Tatton, 249 F.2d 908, 910-912 (5th Cir. 1957); see also: Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Hayes v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 648 (5th Cir. 1963); Review Committee, etc., v. Willey, 275 F.2d 264, 273 (8th Cir. 1960); cert. denied 363 U.S. 827, 80 S.Ct. 1597, 4 L.Ed. 2d 1522 (1960). Therefore, if this Court were to engage in a review of the Review Committee's determinations, it would be exceeding the powers granted to it by the Congress. To cure this problem, the Review Committee is ordered to amend its decision within five (5) days by the addition of proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); Great Lakes Screw Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 409 F.2d 375, 378-380, 380 n. 4 (7th Cir. 1969); Austin v. Jackson, 353 F.2d 910, 912 (4th Cir. 1965); Lautares v. Smith, 285 F. Supp. 578, 583 (E.D.N.C.1968); Stallard v. Review Committee, 275 F.Supp. 931 (W.D.Va.1967); 7 C.F.R. §§ 711,21 (g), 711.23; 2 K.Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 16.05; 16.06, 450; 16.07 (1958); see also: Crolley v. Tatton, 249 F.2d 908, 910-912 (5th Cir. 1957). The Court believes that it is appropriate to point out that the Review Committee is free to seek the assistance of all counsel as an aid to its formulation of its revised factual and legal determinations. See: Lautares v. Smith, supra. This is not, however, to be construed as an encroachment upon the Review Committee's power on remand, and the Committee is free to reach its revised decision in any manner it desires which is consistent with due process. c. f.: Crolley v. Tatton, supra; and Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1968).

In order to facilitate the Review Committee's determinations the Court is of the view it should reiterate and expand upon its discussion of the term "demand" as used in Public Law 91-524 §§ 601(3) (1) (a) (1) and (2) (11/30/71) (hereafter called the Agricultural Act of 1970). As the Court stated on pages 3-7 of its March 5, 1971 Memorandum and Order:

Section 601(3) (1) (a) (2) requires that the County Office Committee approve the in-state out-of-county transfer of cotton acreage allotments unless they find that there exists a "demand" for the acreage allotments in the respective transferor county.² The Agricultural Act of 1970 does not define the term "demand" and no regulations have been promulgated by the Secretary or Department of Agriculture defining the test which the County Office Committees must use to ascertain if an in-county demand exists.³ Since no other court has defined this term as used in § 601, it is a question of first impression.

In an attempt to define the criteria implicit in the term "demand" as used in § 601, the Court examined the legislative history of the Act. This examination did not disclose any Congressional discussion of the term. The examination, however, did disclose that the 1970 Amendments to the Agricultural Act of 1938, as amended in 1965 and 1968, were the Congress' answers to the problems its previous enactments had caused to the cotton industry. Specifically, an examination of Congressional Committee reports and the comments of legislators and witnesses during committee hearings disclosed that Congress believed the prior law to have been too restrictive of native cotton production, and intended that the 1970 Amendments should cause an increase in the growth of domestic cotton. See: House Committee Report of the Agriculture Committee, 91-1329 (to accompany H.R. 18546) at 41 (7/23/70); Senate Committee Report of the Agricultural and Forestry Committee, 91-1154 (to accompany H.R. 18546) published in U.S.Cong. and Ad.News, at 6198-99 (8/28/70); Conference Committee Report (to accompany H.R. 18546) published in U.S.Cong. and Ad. News at 6213 (10/9/70); Senate Agricultural and Forestry Committee Hearings on H.R. 18546 at 433-445, 634-635, 637 (1970).

Because of this change in philosophy the regulations promulgated to facilitate the interpretation and use of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1344 (1938) as amended in 1965 and 1968, are of no help in defining the scope and use of the term "demand" as used in the 1970 Agricultural Act § 601.

The Court, however, is not without the aid of the Secretary and Department of Agriculture's expertise on the scope of the term. Seven days (November 23, 1970) before the Act of 1970 was approved by the President, the Department of Agriculture distributed a handbook to the County Office Committees for their use in applying the new Act. The provisions of this handbook relevant to the determination of whether in-county demand existed were attached as exhibit A to plaintiff's original complaint in C.A. 71-B-23.⁴

Since it is undisputed that the handbook was not published in the Federal Register⁵ and therefore not promulgated according to the strict requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act's notice provisions, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (1) (1946) as amended (1966), it cannot be accorded the dignity of a regulation having in substance the dignity of legislation. U.S.A. v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S....