*1 OF STARK ET AL. WICKARD, SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, et al. Decided February 28, 1944. Argued January 14,
No. 211. 1944. Hanify, B. H. Brian Mr. Edward with whom Messrs. Harry Holland brief, were Polikoff petitioners. Fahy, Freund, General Solicitor Paul A. with whom
Mr. *2 Berge, H. Messrs. Charles Attorney General Assistant Stephen Doyle brief, were on Weston and J. respondents. Hall
Messrs. Reuben Charles W. Wilson filed a brief England of the New Milk behalf Producers’ Associa- curiae, urging as amicus tion, affirmance. Justice Reed delivered the the Court. opinion
Me.
This class action was instituted
the United States
of Columbia,
procure
District Court for the District
injunction prohibiting
respondent Secretary
Agriculture
carrying
certain
of his
provisions
out
4,
Order No.
August 1,
dealing
effective
1941,
with the
marketing
Massachusetts,
of milk
Boston,
Greater
1937,
Agricultural Marketing
area. See
Agreement Act of
246,
seq.,
§§
Stat.
7 U. C.
4,
S.
et
and Order United
Department
States
of Agriculture, Surplus
Ad-
Marketing
ministration,
7,
Title
Code of Federal Regulations, Part
The
904.
district court dismissed the
suit
failure
claim
state a
can
its
upon
relief
be granted, and
judgment
affirmed by
was
Court
Appeals
for the
Columbia,
District of
136 F.
786.
respondent
2d
The
War
Food
joined
Administrator was
upon
this Court
a show-
ing
given
that he had been
powers concurrent with those
Secretary.
See Executive Order No.
filed
April 23, 1943, F.
8 R.
granted
5425. We
certiorari
importance
because
question
to the adminis-
of this
tration
Act.
The are producers of milk, who assert that 904.7 (b) (5) §§ and 904.9 of his Order, Secretary unlawfully diverting funds that belong to them. The below courts dismissed the action ground on the legal Act no vests cause of action in milk producers, and since the decision below argument and the here lim- were consideration our shall confine point, we
ited to to it. has Columbia District of court for the
The district suit;1 to hear the authorizing it general equity jurisdiction further go must recover, petitioners but in amounts to an the act of the and show that so, If theirs.2 legal right of with some terference may be restrained officers that executive principle familiar ab courts wrongs ordinary from threatened remedy will enable exclusive alternative sence of some if complaint but suit; their to maintain petitioners cognizance, courts take a claim of which upon does not rest petitioners place it dismissed. properly then was *3 im expressly be or rights may as upon their reliance such Marketing Agreement Agricultural created pliedly Order issued thereunder. Act of 1937 and the pro reviewed the Although previously this has Court length upheld at and its constitut of that statute visions necessary to it is to further reference ionality,3 some interest the funds dealt understanding producer’s of with the Order.4 1 41, amended, 49 1921. The District D. Code Stat. See 18 C. § jurisdiction exercise the same
of court also of United Columbia juris generally, D. district courts 18 C. Code have States § arising regulat cases under acts Code over diction under the Judicial ing Code, (8), (8); 24 commerce. Judicial 28 U. S. C. 41 interstate Smith, Chicago, Lumber & Turner Co. M. 38; v. v. 307 U. S. Mulford Argus Hosiery Mills, Ry. Co., P. Robertson 259; v. 121 St. 271 S. U. F. 2d 285. 2 A., Co. v. T. V. Tennessee Power 306 U. S. 137-8. See 3 Royal Co-op., P. v. Rock H. Hood 533; 307 U. S. See United States States, 588. & United U. S. Sons necessary to following the Act are a consideration The clauses of of case: this Congress— hereby policy of declared to be the “Sec. 2. It is upon
“(1) Through powers of the conferred the exercise the Secre- tary Agriculture title, under to establish and maintain such of agricultural marketing commodities in inter- orderly conditions object Act fix immediate is to minimum prices the sale of to handlers. It by producers does forbid sales at prices above the minimum. It contains state prices commerce as will farmers establish at a level that will give agricultural purchasing power respect commodities a with equivalent buy, purchasing agri- articles that farmers power period; and, cultural commodities in the base in the case of all com- August modities for which period pre-war period, the base is the July 1914, payments per will current also reflect interest acre on farm indebtedness payments per secured real estate tax and acre estate, farm real payments as contrasted with interest tax payments during period. period the base The base in the case of all agricultural except potatoes pre- commodities tobacco and shall be the period, August war 1909-July 1914. In the case of tobacco and potatoes, period post-war period, August the base shall be the 1919- July 1929.
“(2) protect by (a) To approaching the interest of the consumer prices the level of policy Congress which it is declared to be the (1) by gradual establish in subsection of this section correction of the rapid current Secretary Agriculture level at as a rate as the deems public interest and feasible in view of the current con- sumptive foreign demand markets, (b) domestic and authoriz- ing no action under purpose this title which has for its the maintenance prices to farmers policy above the level which it is declared be the Congress to establish in subsection of this section.” (5) Any person “Sec. 8a willfully exceeding any quota or allotment fixed him under this title Agriculture, person knowingly other participating, aiding, exceeding *4 quota said allotment, or shall equal forfeit the to United States sum to three times the current excess, market value of such which for- shall brought feiture be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States.
“(6) hereby The several district courts of the United States are jurisdiction specifically vested with enforce, to prevent and to and re- any person violating any strain from order, regulation, agreement, or heretofore or hereafter made pursuant or title, any issued this to proceeding pending now brought or hereafter in said courts.
“(7) request Upon Secretary the of the of Agriculture, it shall be duty attorneys the of the several district States, the United in their respective districts, Attorney under the directions of the General, to proceedings institute enforce the remedies and collect the for- to, this title. Whenever in, pursuant provided for or feitures Agriculture Department employee of the Secretary, or such or officer any believe that reason to designate purpose, has for as he any or violating, provisions violated, isor handler has Secretary title, shall pursuant to this thereto issued amendment investigation and, due notice to such after to institute an power have for the the facts hearing to determine in order handler, to conduct a Attorney appro- referring General matter to purpose of priate action. shall be addition for in this section “(8) provided The remedies provided for penalties any remedies or of, to, not exclusive and existing equity. at law or hereafter in this title or now or
elsewhere individual, an in this title includes “(9) ‘person’ as used The term association, any business unit.” other partnership, corporation, Agriculture Secretary has reason Whenever (3) “Sec. the de- will to effectuate tend issuance of an order believe commodity respect any product or title with policy of this clared give (2) section, shall due of this he specified in subsection thereof hearing upon proposed order. opportunity for a notice of and hearing, opportunity for “(4) After such notice and finds, and sets forth in such if he Agriculture shall issue an order (in hearing addition to upon introduced at order, evidence required by section) specifically findings may such other all of the terms and conditions order and issuance of such policy title with declared of this thereof will tend effectuate commodity. respect to such products, pursuant
“(5) milk and its orders issued In the case of following con- more of the terms and shall contain one or this section (7)) provided in subsection no others: (except as ditions, and Classifying with the form which or the “(A) milk in accordance fixing, providing used, or a method for purpose which it is use classification which all handlers fixing, prices for each such minimum made, pur- payments shall be for milk pay, and the time when shall producers. prices Such shall producers associations of or chased subject only adjustments (1) handlers, all be uniform as to customarily production applied volume, market, differentials grade quality subject order, (2) or of the milk handlers to such delivery milk, at which of such purchased, and the locations handlers. thereof, classification is made to such use “(B) Providing:
(i) payment producers for the to all and associations of prices delivering milk same of uniform for all milk to the handler *5 by That, except Provided, delivered case of them: the orders covering products only, provision approved milk or such is favored by during who, representa- producers at least three-fourths of the a by Agriculture, period tive of have determined the been engaged production for of milk in such market covered order representative producers during or who, period, pro- such have produced duced at least of the volume of such milk three-fourths during approval required period; market the hereunder such shall separate approval apart disapproval pro- and other or section; vided for this or
(ii) payment producers the to pro- all and associations of delivering ducers prices milk to all handlers of uniform for all milk delivered, irrespective so of uses made of milk the such the delivered; individual handler whom it to is subject, only adjustments case, volume, market, in either (a) production customarily and applied by differentials handlers sub- the ject order, (b) (c) grade delivered, the milk quality or of the delivery (d) the locations at which milk and fur- made, of such is adjustment, equitably apportion ther total of value purchased by any handler, handlers, producers among or all and marketings producers, associations the basis their of milk dur- ing representative period of time.
“(C) accomplish paragraphs In order purposes set forth in (A) (B) making (5), and providing subsection a method for adjustments payments, among (including producers handlers handlers), paid who are also end that the total sums each equal purchased by handler shall the value of the milk him at the prices paragraph (A) fixed accordance with hereof.” provisions
Among (7), subsection (5), referred 8c for terms authorization described as follows: (7) (D) to, with, Incidental and inconsistent the terms 8c “Sec. necessary specified (5), (6), (7) and conditions in subsections provisions to effectuate the other of such order.” (9) (8) exceptions 8c provide, Sections with 8c not here relevant marketing approval that a order must have the of the handlers of at subject commodity least of the volume order unless 50% Secretary, approval with President, of the determines proposed necessary policy to effectuate the declared only practical “is advancing Act and means interests commodity pursuant of such policy. to the declared . . .” (B). agree not, Whether handlers an order must be *6 pro- of the either two-thirds “approved found favored” to be or commodity produced. Section the ducers or of in number volume determine referendum to Secretary 8c the to hold a (19) authorizes approve. whether applicable title shall be (13) (B) issued under this
“Sec. 8c No order producer.” any producer capacity to in his as a this subject under (14) Any an issued handler order “Sec. 8c handler, director, agent, employee of such any officer, section, or or provision (other than a provision such order any who of violates expenses) shall, on con- calling pro share of payment of rata a each such $50 or more than $500 viction, fined not than be less shall day continues during which such violation violation, and each separate Provided, That if the court finds that be deemed a violation: petition section filed (15) of this was pursuant a subsection penalty delay, prosecuted good not for no defendant in faith and the imposed under such as occurred shall be subsection for violations with upon petition filed date the defendant's was between the which ruling Secretary’s Secretary, upon which the the and the date notice of given regulations pre- with thereon in accordance was the defendant pursuant scribed (15).” to subsection subject (15) (A) may writ- Any handler to an order file a “Sec. 8c stating such petition any Secretary Agriculture, ten the of that with obligation imposed any any provision any order such order or or of praying in is in accordance with law and connection therewith not exempted therefrom. shall there- a modification thereof or to be He upon ac- given opportunity hearing upon petition, such in be an for a regulations Secretary Agriculture, the of with cordance with made hearing, approval Secretary After such the shall President. final, ruling upon prayer petition make such which shall be if in with accordance law.
“(B) (including The District Courts of United States Su- preme Columbia) in Court of District of district business, place inhabitant, principal such handler is an or has his ruling, jurisdiction equity are with such hereby vested to review provided equity purpose days twenty for that a bill filed within entry ruling. process the date of of such Service of in such proceedings delivering copy may upon Secretary be had him a complaint. ruling the court that bill If determines law, proceedings with it shall accordance remand such Secretary (1) ruling directions either with to make such law, (2) court shall determine to be in with accordance ,5 that provides it policy appropriate an declaration hearing when shall hold Secretary Agriculture marketing order he that a would has reason to believe Act.6 If he finds purposes tend to effectuate the the declared accordance with order would (7) he must issue it.7 Sections 8c and 8c policy, then contain. provisions enumerate the (5) (A) classify Section authorizes milk in use, with the form or of its purpose accordance *7 fix to min prices minimum for each classification. These are ima the use of fix value the milk. This method of ing prices adopted was because the economic value of milk depends upon particular made of it.8 It is use inequities might apparent among producers serious as arise if upon the prices depended each received the use the handler might happen milk; to his make of accord ingly, (5) (B) § 8c provision authorizes to be made for payment of uniform milk price9 delivered milk irrespective put use to which the by the individual (5) (C) handler. Section 8c authorizes Secretary up the necessary machinery set ac complish these purposes. proceedings as, requires.
take such opinion, further its law The pendency proceedings pursuant (15) of instituted subsection impede, Secretary shall not hinder, delay or the United States or the Agriculture obtaining pursuant relief of (6) to section 8a Any proceedings brought this title. pursuant (6) to section 8a (except brought by this title way where of counterclaim in proceedings pursuant instituted subsection (15)) to this shall abate whenever a final proceedings decree has been rendered in between par- the same ties, covering subject matter, same pursuant instituted to this (15).” subsection 5 2, supra. 4,n. § 6 supra. (3), 8c n. § 4, supra. (4), n. 8 See Royal United States Rock Co-op., 307 U. S. 549-50. price” weighted “Uniform average means minimum prices. fix Agriculture did 4,10 No.
By Order milk and each required for each class of prices minimum hearings holding preamble the order recites the The (9) Section 904.0 of Order compliance of the Act. with 8c§ findings terms. Secretary’s the definitions of and 904.1 contains irrespective any person, means term ‘handler’ “Sec. 904.1 producer producers, person or an association of whether such is a milk, operating, engages handling in such who wherever located or marketing area, is in the milk cream in the which is sold as or directly burdens, foreign commerce, or which current of interstate or foreign commerce, obstructs, interstate in milk its or affects or products.” the duties of administrator.
Section 904.2 enumerates market milk into I milk and Class II accord- Section 904.3 classifies Class ing Generally speaking, I to its Class milk that which utilization. containing is utilized for as milk from of butterfat sale % 1% 16% milk, or as chocolate flavored II while Class includes ah other uses. provides: Section 904.4 Prices, prices (a) producers. 904.4. Class 1 “Sec. Minimum pay producers, Each handler shall in the manner set forth Sec. 904.8, by them, following for Class I milk delivered not less than the prices: *8 pay producers, shall Each handler “(b) prices. II Class by milk 904.8, II delivered them for Class manner set in Sec. forth hundredweight: following prices . .” per . not less than the by necessary reports informational provides 904.5 Section excep- application of the
handlers, deals with the Order 904.6 and § 904.7, dealing computation with of types handlers. Section tional of applicable portions July 28, weighted average, read in as of its the 1941, as follows: Prices Producers.
“Sec. 904.7. Determination of Uniform delivery Computation handler. (a) milk each For each value of of compute . . . milk period administrator shall the value of the market following distributed, handler ... sold, or used each manner: “(1) quantity price appli- of class Multiply milk each (b), (c), pursuant paragraphs (a), 904.4; and of and Sec. cable “(2) together resulting Add of each class. value “(b) Computation prices. and announcement uniform compute prices announce market administrator shall and the uniform pay area to less than those handler Boston less 904.4, minima to C. F. R. producers, Supp., hundredweight during each'delivery period in per delivered following manner: respective “(1) milk, values com- Combine into one total the pursuant paragraph (a) puted section, for each handler office,prior received at from whom the market administrator has his delivery period, report day to the 11th the end of such after delivery required period payments (b) (3) and the Sec. 904.8 (g) during (h) delivery period and and for milk received each since hereof; date of the most recent amendment effective “(4) paid pursuant the total to be Subtract amount 904.8(b) (2); Sec.
“(5) payments required Subtract the total of to be made for such period delivery pursuant (b) ; to Sec. 904.9 “(6) quantity Divide the total of milk which is included in computations. these ...
“(7) Subtract not less than 4 cents nor more than 5 cents for the purpose retaining a balance in payments cash connection with the (b) (3); set forth in Sec. 904.8
“(9) day delivery On the 12th after end period, of each mail to publicly (a) handlers computations all announce such of these pursuant do not act, disclose information confidential (b) hundredweight price per blended which is result of these com- putations, (c) the names handlers whose milk is included computations, (d) price.” the Class II 28,1941, (5) As of October Subsection was revoked and the subsections following renumbered, it were and the deduction required theretofore by amending (new it was effected Subsection (6)) Subsection to read as follows: “(6) Subtract not less than cents nor more than cents 5% 6% purpose retaining
for the a cash balance in connection with the ” payments (b) (3) set (b); forth 904.8 and 909.9 §§ n. See infra. (a) (b), dealing Section 904.8 with making the method of pay- *9 ment, reads: Payments Milk, “Seo. 904.8 (a) payments. Advance for On or day before the 10th after the end delivery of each period, each handler payment shall make to the approximate value of milk addition, In 904.8. (b), §§904.7 deductions. specified to the statute granted authority exercised event period. In no delivery days during of such the first 15 received price II Class less than the be payment at a rate advance shall such period. delivery such day end 25th after the payments. or before “(b) Final On subject to payment, make delivery period, shall each handler each section, for (d) this paragraph forth in butterfat differential set required delivery period as during such value milk received total (a), computed pursuant as follows: be Sec. 904.7 to to subparagraph (2) “(1) producer, except forth To each as set hundredweight, price per paragraph blended at not less than subject set to differentials computed pursuant (b), to Sec. 904.7 quantity of milk deliv- (e) section, for the paragraph of this forth in producer; ered such period milk
“(2) regularly sell for a producer, who To did persons February or days prior handler to of 30 price marketing area, II in effect at not less than the Class within the except milk, producer plant at which such delivered pur- May, price June, September delivery periods during the (3) (b) apply, for all the delivered suant Sec. 904.4 shall regular during period beginning with the producer such first continuing full delivery producer such end until the following succeeding day calendar months of the next calendar the first month; and through
“(3) administrator, by paying producers, To market to, day delivery period, on or before 23rd after the end of each day receiving from the market administrator on or before the 25th delivery may be, after the end of period, each as the case the amount payments required which pursuant subpara- to made be graphs (1) paragraph of this less exceed are than or the value required of milk computed pursuant for such handler Sec. (a), as 904.7 shown in a statement rendered the market administrator on delivery or before the day 20th after the of such end period.” of 904.8 deal with pertinent. clauses differentials not here Other payments cooperatives 904.9 authorizes are Section Eligibility requirements questioned here. (a), are set out 904.9 provides: which then “ (1) Any cooperative shall association receive amount com- puted per more than the rate of cents hundredweight at not IV2 *10 in weighted average reaching the use uni- require of a in be as described paid producers, form to preceding 904.8. paragraph. 904.7, §§ conformity of milk marketed it behalf its members with on provision pursu- order, of this the value of which determined (a), respect ant made to Sec. 904.7 and with to which a handler has Provided, payments required by (b) (3) as Sec. and Sec. 904.10: 904.8 paid handlers That amount shall not exceed the amount which obligated are payments to deduct from members under subsection (e) paying patronage hereof not used in or and are dividends other except ful- payments respect to members with to milk delivered guarantee filling payments producers; where and that cases participate marketing two same or more associations in the milk, payment only paragraph under this be the as- shall available producer agent sociation which the individual has made exclusive his marketing of such milk. “(2) Any cooperative association shall receive amount com- puted per hundredweight at the rate of 5 cents on Class I milk received producers plant operated at a under the exclusive control producers, member proprietary which is sold to handlers. This stores, amount shall handlers, not received on milk sold cooperative any ownership, which the has or to a handler with the cooperative arrangements has such sales that its milk not sold as Class I milk to such handler is not available as for sale Class I milk to other handlers.” (b)
Section 904.9 payment contains the direction for out of the cash balance (b) (6), supra. created amended, 904.7 § Section 904.9: Payment Cooperative “(b) The mar- Associations. Qualified shall, upon
ket administrator claim prescribed submitted in form as by him, payments make paragraph (a), authorized under issue or credit pursuant therefor out of the cash balance credited to Sec. 904.7 (b) (5), day on or before the delivery 25th after period, the end of each subject receipts to verification of the other items on which payment amount of such is based.” payments
The deductions from cooperative handlers to member producers, referred (a) quoted 904.9 (1), supra, authorized are (e), 904.9 as follows: “(e) Authorized member producers deductions. In the case of whose milk is plant operated received at a cooperative not association of which such are members and which is receiving payments final settle make handler does Order, Under been has price the blended until producer with
ment before part payment must make although he set, *11 eight days within 904.8. But each month. tenth of § “de so-called month—the end each calendar after the his report must handler (9)—the 904.1 livery period,” § ato value, 904.5, by § use deliveries, classified sales On the basis (8). 904.1 § “market administrator.” blended computes the the administrator reports, these end following the day it on the twelfth announces price and twenty-fifth On the delivery (b). § 904.7 period. of the required the balance due pay are to day, the handlers (b). § 904.8 producers. fixed price so to the blended necessary, deductions no administrative Were readily hundredweight of milk could price per blended milk dividing total used by be value determined clas prices at minimum for each marketing in the area hundredweight milk of raw sification the number of requires However, the Order several the area.12 used admittedly adjustments purposes authorized stat price so that the determination of the blended as ute, actually made is drawn from total use value less a sum is to meet the administrator directed retain to vari In adjustments.13 each handler practice, ous incidental pursuant section, each handler shall make such deductions producers pursuant payments from the to be made such to Sec. producers and, as 904.8 authorized or before day delivery period, pay of each 25th after the-end over such deduc- favor such tions to the association whose authorizations were made.” requires pay Section 904.10 each handler market admin- hundredweight per istrator not more than 2 cents of milk delivered to him order meet costs of administration. Section 904.11 covers time, suspension, the effective termination of the order. 11 price” “Blended the uniform less administrative means deductions. 12 (a). Supp. F. Cf.7 C. R. 904.7 § Supp. (b). 7 C. F. R. 904.7 See § he of whom obligation discharges his to the bought two one by making payments: payment, mini at price, apportioned blended is from the values mum price for the less administrative respective classes producer himself;14 deductions and is made to the made, other payment equal and is these deductions language through “to producer, Order, the market administrator,” in order to the admin enable istrator to quest cover the differentials and deductions ion.15 It contention of the petitioners (6)16 904.7 (b) of the Order the Secretary has directed the administrator to deduct a of meet purpose sum the ing payments to cooperatives required 904.9, that the Act does not authorize the include his provision for payments de of that kind or for *12 ductions to meet them. Apparently, this deduction payments to cooperatives is the only deduction that is against unrecoverable charge the other producers. The items deducted under (b) § 904.7 revolving are fund or to meet differentials price because of sea location, et cetera. delivery, sonal petitioners allege they producer
These that de- have milk the Boston,” livered to handlers “Greater Massa- marketing the chusetts, area under of the provisions Order. They they state that are not members cooperative of a entitled under the association Order to the pay- contested ments that, producers, many and of them against voted challenged the producers’ amendment on the referendum under (9) §§ 8c and (19) 8c of the allegations Act. These 14 Supp. 7 F. R. (b), (1). C. 1941 (b) 904.7 904.8 §§ 15 Supp. (3). 7 R. (b) C. F. 1941 operations 904.8 The set the § tlement fund are described in Royal Co-op., United States v. Rock 533, U. S. 571. superseded This (5) section has time (b) 904.7 in effect at the § brought this suit was with reference F. R. deduction in issue. 5482, effective supra. October 1941. See n. dismissal was upon by admitted the defense
are upon to state a claim that the fails based, namely, petition From the sum- granted. preceding which relief could be statutory regulation mary plan the theory commerce, affecting milk prices minimum interstate right exercised the petitioners it have is clear these to deliver their granted them the statute and Order guaranteed at Boston” handlers to “Greater Agriculture prices fixed the Secretary minimum delivery the accepting that Upon the Order. 904.4. § pay pro- these required by handler was Order manner forth minimum set prices ducers their required the handler Simply stated, 904.8. this section § as de- price blended pay directly producer producers to the pay termined and to administrator meeting deduc- for use through the administrator ap- authorized the order of tions (b), producers, proved two-thirds of the minimum price the blended difference between to deduct directed the administrator price. The Order from the coming into hands producers' from the funds his 904.9. cooperatives. payments sale challenge as It this deduction which beyond Secretary’s statutory power. respondents legal not such interest petitioners answer have or in settlement expenditure in this the administrator’s challenge them the action the Secre- fund as entitles *13 in the disbursement. The Government tary directing nothing into the says pay as the settlement producers it, they legally have no nothing from fund and receive There gives standing them sue. right protected challenged deduc- that the is, no but course, question actually received the amount tion reduces tanto pro milk. producers for their all required has Order, the By the statute and milk of other dealing handlers area (6), 904.1 just §§ described. prices minimum pay compelled by producer The (14). Act, § 8c 904.4; neither can (Act (13) (B)) but to deliver the Order if a dealer he finds elsewhere; and to market required behe producer de buy product, will his in the area who the Act and scope of within the livery of comes obviously price minimum fixing The Order Order. busi producer’s action the by direct Governmental affects Broadcasting Sys handlers. Columbia with ness relations Chicago 407, 422. U. S. Cf. States, 316 United tem v. fact the pro Case, 258, 267. Junction 264 U. S. mini any price above the the handler ducer sell to not the determining whether or not of moment mum is minimum Should price. him a secure to and Order statute in excess handler at prices milk to a his producer sell be com nevertheless minimum, the handler would The chal fund the amount. pelled into the same pay §§ area 904.7 sale. every is a burden on lenged deduction is that allegation petitioners’ In substance (a), (b). 904.8 authority statutory without directed effect the Order tax a the United States sales pay sum to a deduction of a right create a The statute and Order on milk sold. minimum protection himself of the
producer to avail right Such a action. afforded Governmental mandatory obviously character created statute For the Order example, capable of enforcement.17 in milk shed from any qualified producers could not bar just instances cited handlers. Like the selling to area 548, Clerks, 281 U. S. v. Brotherhood N. O. R. Co. Texas & System Federation, 545. Gen- Ry. 568; Virginian U. S. Co. v. Co., and Switchmen’s M.-K.-T. R. Committee 320 U. S. eral contrary Board, 297, do not look Union v. Mediation 320 U. S. petitioners by statute in the created direction. Both assume claims ground that “Con- deny judicial remedy claims on to those enforcement of gress to the courts for . . . has foreclosed resort 327. parties.” 300 and 320 U. S. claims asserted *14 304 petitioners n. here supra, 17, railway cases, labor coverage within the bring
voluntarily themselves may fairly producers that because Act. It cannot be said to sell area, who do choose those choose not to sell challenge, right necessarily sell, without a there must of adminis- requirements with unlawful accordance handler, a purchase of his Upon trators. rights, g., e. with other producer endows the statute Order, price. § 904.4. right a minimum paid legis action under mere fact Governmental that price a minimum to receive opportunity lation creates not the problem particu of whether or does not settle the District Court. lar made is enforcible claim here have detrimental for cooperatives The deduction that detriment be effect on the injuria.18 a absque only complainant It is when damnum a something general more than interest possesses position he is a proper execution the laws that interest must rise to secure intervention. His him and personal pos of an dignity interest generally.19 a claim people sessed is of Such adjudication constitutionally permits character which bi- general powers.20 courts under their 18 Co., v. Illinois R. United 82, 87; United Central 244 U. S. States Angeles Co., & Alabama 299, 314-15; States v. Los S. L. R. 273 U. S. Ickes, 464, 478; Tennessee Power Co. v. Power Co. v. 302 S. U. Co., A., V. Perkins Lukens T. Steel 135; 118, U. S. v. 310 U. S. Singer Co., & Sons 113, 125; v. Union R. 311 U. S. 303. Pacific long recognized. been Chief Mar This distinction has Justice Marbury Madison, phrased language early it as v. shall vivid fragment only 1 Cranch 137, 165-66, follows: a of which “But where specific duty assigned by rights depend law, upon individual performance duty, equally of that clear it seems the individ injured, right ual has who considers himself resort to the laws Co., Perkins v. Steel remedy.” Lukens country his for a 310 U. S Mellon, Massachusetts 113, 125; 488. v. U. S. 20 Philadelphia Stimson, v. Co. 605, 619; American School 223 U. S. Magnetic Healing McAnnulty, 94, 110. 187 U. S. *15 allegations the of the deem it clear that on com- We jus- personal these a claim plaint producers have such as It more judicial is much definite and tifies consideration. right complainants personal than the con- objections to regulations, sideration of their which this upheld System Broadcasting Court Columbia v. United States, 316 407. In present U. S. the case reexamination preceding summary statement of facts and of the statute and will delivering Order show that are- producers prices assured minimum for their § milk. 904.4. The Order directs the handler to pay that as minimum follows: By (a) §
A. 904.8 the handler is to a preliminary make part payment price of the (b) § blended and later, 904.8 (1) the handler final payment makes the to the producer blended price computed of the as It the Order directs. is clear that the Order compels handler to pay not only price, blended which is always less than uniform minimum price, but the entire minimum price, 904.8 (b) because directs the handler’s payment of entire minimum value ascertained by (a) (1) § 904.7 (2). price The blended by subtracting reached among other items the cooperative payment, here in ques- tion, from minimum price. (5). 904.7 (b) minimum
B. balance han- price, dler owes to the must producer, pay producer, he “to through the market administrator” by payment into equalization days settlement fund two ahead of the for payment final date of the blended price. (b) § 904.8 (3). This of minimum purchase balance then used partly the administrator to pay cooperatives. (b). § 904.9 The handler is simply a conduit from the administrator who receives and distributes the minimum prices. The substantially situation would be if the same an administrator received as trustee for the producers the purchase price milk, paid expenses of their incurred in the Under producers. to the the balance paid
operation,
haye legal
the think
we
such circumstances
Order.
illegal provisions
object to
standing to
claim
possesses a
complainant
where
However, even
by federal
created
him,
beneficial
executive action
ad-
that actions
necessarily follow
it does
statute,
right
by the owner
deemed
officials,
ministrative
cogniz-
claim, are
upon his
restrictions
place unlawful
When
of first instance.
federal courts
appropriate
able
rem-
States, no
against the United
are
claims created
*16
States
United
provided.
be
through
courts need
edy
Babcock,
Work
cited;
v.
328, 331, and cases
U. S.
v.
250
A. P.
Co. v. United
Rives,
Butte,
Ry.
&
175, 181;
U.
267
S.
dignity of
States,
reach the
142, 143. To
127,
290 U. S.
it
from tin.
sense,
appear
must
legal right
a
strict
Congress
legislation that
and character of the
nature
judi-
protected by
statutory privilege
a
intended
create
circumstances of the
Under
unusual
cial remedies.
Railway
Act,
Labor
development
historical
of the
agency’s
recently
Court has
an administrative
held
controversy
em-
determination of
between unions of
proper bargaining representative
as to which
ployees
is
justiciable
certain
federal
employees
not
courts.
Co.,
General Committee v. M.-K.-T. R.
U.
S. 323.
Act
Under the same
it was held on the same date that the
determination
the National Mediation Board of the
representatives
in an election
participants
for collec-
bargaining
subject
tive
was
likewise
review.
Board,
Switchmen’s Union v. Mediation
U.
S. 297.
This result was reached because of this Court’s view that
jurisdictional disputes between
left by
unions were
Con-
gress
adjudication.
to mediation rather than
320 U. S.
302 and 337.
say,
personal
That
no
right
employees, enforcible
courts,
was created in the
particular instances under consideration. 320
S.U.
337.
But
rights
bargaining,
where
collective
created
prohibitions
contained definite
Railway
Act,
Labor
same
mandatory
this Court enforced
form,
or were
conduct
judicially.
331. Cf. Texas &
rights
320 U. S.
Clerks,
548;
Brotherhood
Vir
N. O. R. Co.
281 U. S.
v.
Federation,
ginian Ry.
System
Without right in in- personal statutory create definite such a as a fund handled a federal against agency, dividual limit to adminis- here, yet enforceability its we have despite the existence of federal determination, trative jurisdiction established under Article general courts of Congressional grant juris- Constitution, III the proceeding appears plain. There is no of this diction for these statute granted review judicial direct examination of judicial for a authority The proceedings. in the exist- found Secretary’s action is the validity the Congress deduced as intent of ence of and the courts considered. hereinafter precedents the statutes and many intent to submit face the The Act bears its re judicial arising its administration under questions It specifically (A) (B). (6), §§ view. 8a in 8a are provided specifically that the remedies states existing at law or remedies now to any to be addition construed (8). Court heretofore equity. This has § 8a relief addition to grant toAct handlers (15). On specifically provided by § 8c statutory review States, per handler was the United complaint by want of statu to raise issues of a by way mitted of defense provisions on handlers which tory authority impose United States v. Rock directly affect such handlers. Royal Rock In the Royal Co-op., 307 U. 560-61. S. that the handlers had contended case the Government for enforcement at legal standing had the suit no tp relating to handlers. While provisions tack upheld the contention of as to the we Government object standing operation of handlers to to the lack of ground fund on producer settlement that fund, recog “financial interest” we had no handlers standing question of proprietary nized the handler to alleged discrimination shown favor of co-operative producer settlement fund is handlers. created deductions of a payment meet allowable part through the minimum market ad 15, supra. Boycd ministrator. See note Bock pointed standing question out that handlers were without fund, use because handlers had no financial interest every or its use. It is because dollar fund of de producer duction comes from the *18 may challenge he petitioners’ use of the fund. The complaint not
309
their
is too
but that
the blended
price
low,
blended
has been reduced
de-
misapplication
money
from
minimum
producers’
price.
ducted
recognition by Congress
With this
applicability
judicial
field,
review in this
it
to be lightly
is not
as
sumed that the silence
the statute bars
the courts
justiciable issue,
otherwise
United
Griffin,
an
States v.
Co.,
226,
U. S.
Idaho R.
303
Shields v. Utah
305
238;
U. S.
Board,
F. L. Labor
cf. A.
v.
U.
177, 182;
401, 404,
308
S.
The ruling in Texas &
v. Abilene
Ry.
412.
Co.
Cot
Pacific
Co.,
ton
426,
authority
Oil
204 U.
is not
to the contrary.
S.
It was there
in
placed
power
held that
statute
Interstate
hear
Commerce Commission to
the complaint
in
stated, not
brought.
state court
it was
where
Commission award was then
enforced
court. P.
Here,
438.
no forum,
there is
other than the ordinary
courts, to hear
complaint.
we
When,
previ
have
ously
concluded
this opinion,
personal rights
definite
are created
federal
statute, similar
kind to those
customarily
law,21
treated in
courts
the silence of Con
gress
as to
at
is,
review
rate
absence of
an
remedy,
administrative
to be construed as a
aggrieved
denial of
to the
authority
person to seek
relief in
appropriate
the federal courts
the exercise
general
jurisdiction.
their
Congress
When
passes
empowering
Act
agencies
carry
administrative
governmental activities,
power
agencies
of those
is cir
authority granted.22
cumscribed
This permits the
21
118,
v. T.
V.
306
137.
A.,
U. S.
Tennessee Power Co.
22
Madison,
137, 165;
v.
Cranch
Marbury
American School of
Magnetic Healing McAnnulty,
94, 109-10;
v.
U. S.
Interstate
541,
v. Union
Co.,
S.
R.
547;
U.
Commerce Comm’n
Inter
Pacific
514; Morgan
Ry.
Davidson,
Co. 257 U. S.
national
v. United
479;
298 U. S.
States,
Freight
United States v. Carolina
Carriers
Corp., 475, 489;
U. S.
Commissioner v. Gooch
Milling
& Elevator
Co.,
courts necessary to protect extent only bodies to the ministrative action against administrative rights individual justiciable of responsibility The powers. granted fairly beyond the authority statutory grants of of determining limits courts entrusted to the is function such instances mark- establishing courts and Congress by the statutes Morgan, 307 States v. United ing Cf. jurisdiction. their assuming that far from very This is U. 190-91. S. legis- charged more than administrators or the courts are rights people. of the of protection with lators acts of adminis- supervise the the Executive Congress and boards and departments, of agents. powers The trative subject expansion, contrac- agencies are administrative legislative executive of the tion at will or abolition These branches have government. branches of working examine of the into personnel resources and necessary changes establishments to determine the various Con- management. III, But under Article or function adjudicate cases and controver- gress established courts rights infringement of as to claims of individual sies by private persons whether unlawful action power. exertion of administrative unauthorized at the ruling puts agency suggested It that such Order objectors, provisions since mercy each To producer. as unauthorized attacked of the objection adequate there are answers. The terms discretion as largely Order are matters administrative justiciable right clearly to which there is no or are author Royal Co-op., a valid act. United States Rock ized are 533. Technical details of the milk U. S. business left and his liti expenses aides. gation If parallel deter frivolous contentions. numerous ample filed, authority stay are the courts have cases litigation useless until the determination a test case. Co., North American U. 248. Cf. Landis v. S. Should statutory- to exceed of an order be held provisions some aof power it well within the power Secretary, of the to preserve court of to mold a decree as equity so of the public operation portion interest which is not attacked amendment. pending *20 the
It added that we have not considered hardly need be in allegations by petitioners soundness of the made their The trial court is free to consider complaint. a statutory authority given whether the merely valid answer to the contention. We petitioners’ right judicial petitioners determine the have shown a to a examination of complaint. their
Reversed. judgment Me. Justice is of the view that Black given should be affirmed for the opinion reasons the United Appeals States Court of the District Columbia. in Jackson took no the consideration
Me. part Justice or decision of this case.
Me. Justice dissenting: Frankfuetee', The immediate issue whether plain- before us is these in tiffs, can producers, circumstances of case go to court to complain an order the Secretary of Agriculture fixing rates for the distribution of milk within marketing Greater Boston area. The solution of that question depends, however, upon proper approach a to- ward legislation such a scheme of as that formulated Congress in Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
Apart legislation touching revenue, public domain, national banks and patents, not until the Inter- state Congress Commerce Act of begin 1887 did place enterprise economic under systems of administrative con- trol. regulatory These schemes in range have varied no have they varied government; control exercised control was exercised. in which the procedures
less authority regimes national More these particularly, diversity in the allot- great private enterprise reveal over admin- by Congress as between courts and ment of power pro- made uniform Congress has not agencies. istrative go court, grievance, for what defining in who visions ad- seeking relief from circumstances, and under what In Quite the contrary. determinations. ministrative Congress has estab- successive enactments major agencies lished as instruments administrative contrariety extent greatest there is regulation, measures by which, different which, procedures judicial review of administrative action. of control afford instances, claim citizen Except those rare a trial be ship deportation proceedings, when requirement because of “The differ comes constitutional *21 security judicial action,” in over ence administrative White, judicial Ng 276, 285, Ho 259 U. S. whether Fung v. if and, it, all, so, at who invoke review is available in manner, to what circumstances, what under what answer end, questions depend upon that their are judicial is particular enactment under which review claim on the Recognition turns provisions claimed. in dealing judicial particular a with review statute in provisions of a setting part of such statute as accomplishing expressed the purposes scheme for from text and texture of a Apart particular statute. judicial “judicial law relation to which review is sought, a mischievous abstraction. There no review” is judicial thing common law of review federal as provisions more than a procedural courts. score prove that regulatory of these measures manner has en Congress responsibility distributed for the of its laws between courts and administrative forcement gamut from agencies way authorizing runs a all
313 judicial trial de novo of a claim determined by the admin- istrative agency denying judicial all making review and administrative definitive. action
Congress
not only
has
devised different
schemes
en
forcement for different Acts.
It
has
time to time
modified and restricted
scope
under
review
the same
Act. Compare
Regulate
§ 16
the Act to
Commerce,
February
1887,
104, 24
4,
379,
c.
Stat.
with
38-385,
13§
of the Commerce
Act,
Court
June 18, 1910, 309,
c.
36 Stat.
539, 554-5, and 49 U.
(12),
S. C. 16
and the latter with
reparation
enforcement of
orders, 49
(2).
U. S. C 16§
Moreover the
statute,
same
as
true of the Interstate
Commerce Act, may make some orders not judicially re
viewable
g.,
purpose, see e. United
v.
States
Los
Angeles
Co.,
S.& L. R.
299,
U. S.
reviewable
some who are adversely affected and not by others,
g.,
e.
Singer
Co.,
& Sons v. Union
R.
U. S.
305-
Pacific
308. The oldest scheme of administrative control—our
customs
legislation—shows
revenue
in its evolution all
sorts of permutations and
combinations
using available
administrative and
remedies. See, for instance,
Swartwout,
Elliott v.
Cary Curtis,
137;
Pet.
v.
3 How.
Murray’s
Co.,
236;
Lessee Hoboken
v.
Land
18 How. 272;
Hilton Merritt,
general
110 U. S.
for a
97;
survey, see
Freund, Administrative Powers over
Persons
Prop
erty,
only
And
the other day
260-62.
we
§§
found the
implications of the Railway
(c.
Labor Act
Stat.
(part 2) 577,
amended,
c. 691, 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U. C.S.
§ 151 et seq.) to be such that courts could not even exercise
the function of keeping the National Mediation Board
*22
within
statutory
its
authority.
Union
Switchmen’s
Board,
Mediation
istration of and for whom tell us when Marketing Act cannot tural be had under can judicial review of action administrative ad- of individuals that certain classes that Act. The fact Commerce of the Interstate versely ruling affected redress obtain cannot Commission can and other classes and what what classes court, may does not tell us classes by the judicial for action may not obtain redress respective ad- classes Agriculture which affects these supra, in sup- case, And versely. to cite Switchmen’s In lightly. too our this case to treat decisions port of judicial re- granting denying the numerous either cases by applying not some grant or was reached view, denial on the judicial nor basis some “natural law” of review construing pro- for the diverse general of doctrines body statutes. great regulatory of federal variety visions of the its inci- recognized—its scope when and Judicial review furnished dence—was derived the materials regard to which the particular opportunity statute is the to be judicial review asserted. This lesson was from the decisions of this Court on prior drawn general review, not doctrinaire notions of appli- different schemes of admin- cability based on statutes Congress in conveying purposes istration and different judicial remedies for the utilization administrative judicial review the enforcement of law. However useful Congress to decide may be, it is for and not this Court com- when it be when Constitution used—except it. In Com- this case there no such command. mands Congress remedies and unrelated mon-law withheld new enforcing rights should a new scheme duties engrafted upon Congress saw fit remedies Congress impliedly do denies to particularize. To so right of of reme- choice selection constitutional
315 into constitutional remedies dies, and turns common-law familiar. they are old and because simply necessities Marketing in Act was Agricultural recently When constitutionality sustained litigation us, before we its light history, purposes its scope its of its defined Royal Co-op., Rock United States provisions. and its a milk held that case that handler U. S. 533. We 307 challenge in an order the one which cannot court such we Again history, now assailed. must turn to provisions the Act determine purposes and Congress right gave producer whether sought. here relief
In 1931 1932, dairy prod manufactured prices years. reached level Be twenty-five ucts the lowest relatively bargaining position, cause of their weak Milk seriously. Mortenson, suffered most See Utility, p. 6; Black, Dairy Distribution as a Public The Industry AAA, Dairy Legis and the State Milk c. III; (U. lation Printing Office, S. Gov’t 1941) p. 3. Accord Congress ingly, public decided that interest handling milk in interstate could no longer commerce left to the of a haggling disorderly market, mitigated organization by inadequate within industry. Adjustment Agricultural 25, Act of (c. 31) 1933 48 Stat. the result. The “essential was purpose” series of thus enactments initiated the producer’s was raise prices. Sen. Rep. 1011, No. 74th Cong., Sess., 3d p. 3. (c. The Act of 641, 1933 was amended 49 Stat. 750), and partially reenacted and Agri amended Agreement cultural Marketing 1937, Act of with which concerned, are here we c. 296, Stat. c. seq. et 563, 7
Stat. U. S. C. 601§ An enactment like this, elaborate devised who those know the needs of the industry by legislative and drafted specialists, to be treated organism. as an part Every legislation *24 a whole. The the scheme as
must be related to be found what- within it must code, and is a self-contained For Act fit to afford. the did Congress saw ever remedies rights. It new old created give new remedies for defined the remedies rights duties, precisely new and and rights. of the of duties and vindication for the enforcement producers, the interests of the concerns course statute Of it not define or create But does and consumers. handlers pro- it consumer, specifically any legal interest for the ap- title under this shall that “No order issued vides his any capacity producer.” as producer to plicable (B). 8c (13) § obliga- that entirety it clear
The makes statute as an (6) (A) 8c handlers alone. Section imposed tions are classify according milk Secretary the authorizes the it Section for which is used. purpose form which or the for Secretary provide (5)(B)(ii) 8c directs “irrespective uniform payment producers handler made of milk individual the uses latter, known as the “blended whom it delivered.” This Secretary’s Order No. 4 computed under price,” is milk July by multiplying value of the 28,1941, the use and addi- making specified the total deductions quantity, tions, dividing resulting then sum the total pay- A for (b). § of the milk. 904.7 deduction quantity cooperatives computation which ments to enters into petitioner’s attack. object the minimum “blended apparent price” It is may receives be different than producer the minimum his “use value” fixed Administrator pay. (5) (C) must 8c§ which the handler Thus author- adjustments. provision necessary izes The mechanics adjustments Secretary’s are described in the Order of these short, 4. handler In who sells or uses his No. so price” its value is more than the minimum “blended must pays producer, pay he excess a settlement value puts milk to a lower fund, and the handler who his he turn price” pays use than the minimum “blended (b). receives the difference out of the fund. 904.8 subject him Violation handler makes (14). proceedings. Thus, to criminal 8c while Act and the Order affect interests directly handlers, they operate well as legally those against only. processes handlers provided corrective by the Act reflect this situation. permits Section a handler challenge Secretary, an order and if before dissatisfied, may bring he suit in district before a equity court. Provision remedies consumers producers is absent. neither significantly Such omission is *25 nor surprising. manifestly inadvertent It would be incon- gruous for an Act specifically provides which no that order give shall be producers producers directed at to to right the attack validity to of an order such court. judicial To remedy create a producers for when statute gave Congressional none is dislocate scheme of example, (15) (B) enforcement. For that provides § 8c pendency proceeding of a for a review instituted impede brought handler not delay shall or proceedings' under compliance 8a for an order. with Because provision there is no for court review of an on a order producer’s naturally position there is no corresponding provision guard against such interference with enforce- ment of order. By giving an producers right sue although Congress withheld that right, suspension of a milk pending disposition order producer’s of a suit will depend upon now the discretion trial judges. of And concerning technical details the milk industry that were Secretary committed to the of Agriculture are now made subjects litigation of ill-equipped before courts.
By denying them Congress access the courts has not mercy left to the Secretary Agriculture. of Congress merely has devised other than judicial means interests producers’ expression the effective
for an may issue Before the an order. terms of oppor- an notice of “give due required order he (3). At 8c§ order.” upon proposed a tunity hearing for relevant may persons submit hearing interested all provision adequate makes evidence, procedure Ad- See by an order. may be affected to those who notice Department Practice Procedure and ministrative Marketing Agreement Agricultural under the Agriculture 1939), p. Agriculture, Act Department (U. S. effective seq. only et the most or Nor are these interest. While producer’s safeguarding means for objection of handlers despite the may issued be covered commodity volume of than more 50% not approved issue when order, no order by the numerically according to least two-thirds—either at (9). production—of producers. volume specific provision for sub- Congress made The fact judicial review would questions defined mission of some judicial argument inferring hardly appear to be an scope open ques- is also other even of broader review judicial provide review. Congress did not tions for that as to such other The obvious conclusion called In purposefully review was withheld. questions, such an should the frame of this statute omission *26 having meaning, meaning or rather as that treated as no as an given an is to be the same effect inclusion. omission law (8) referring “existing to remedies at § Nor does 8a only in That equity” problem. or touch our adds to the in Act. (5)—(7) remedies 8a for the enforcement of the § way in qualifies expands express provisions It no in judicial for § statute 8c review of such persons the present—specification of the class of given right who are to resort and narrow courts judicial of the scope limitation review. The of remedy sought by producers review here is by (15) explicitly § 8c is like that not handlers; such review restricted equity, but is a suit Court, before a conventional ruling a price pro- of an adverse procedure review It is a review ceeding Secretary Agriculture. before the judicial review, independent of an not an administrative determination. in
An should not process implications elaborate escape plain meaning (15), vented to and to a formulated of enforcement. carefully dislocate scheme way legislation, is, That is not the to construe such right if Chief characterizing Justice Taft was as “a conspicuous instance his un Justice [Chief White’s] power facility usual remarkable statesmanlike interpretation law,” xxv, of statute 257 U. S. the doctrine Ry. Texas & established Co. Abilene Cotton Pacific Co., particularly Oil U. S. and more inway Regulate which the Act was therein Commerce purposes construed effectuate the that Act. 204 U. S. at 446-447. adding Congress
The Court thus what has written provision a relief of And producers. it sanc tions relief in case in which petitioners a have no standing theory. sue on effect only of the de challenged duction is to fix a minimum price they to which are perhaps entitled lower than that which might otherwise been have determined. prevent But the Act does not their bargaining for price a higher than minimum, and we are advised the Gov ernment of what is denied by petitioners, that such arrangements are no means unusual. This Court has has held a consumer no standing to challenge min imum order like the one us. before Atlanta v. ckes, I Sprunt 308 U. S. cf. 517; States, & Son v. United Surely U. S. 249. a producer may bargain who above the prices minimum is in legal position no better urges a consumer than who that too high minimum has *27 of Massa- improperly been fixed. The Commonwealth milk for institutions purchased public its chusetts $117,584.50 in in $105,232.97 valued at hardly has interest the minimum less substantial price petitioners. yet than And Massachu- that of object no standing setts has minimum fixed to the an order. price” “blended the sum minimum alleged lower gives If complaint. petitioners’ substance nothing merely An does. attack standing to sue
them no was price the blended reduced by which method interesting question but furnishes may abstract present nothing do have right to sue. The legal no They price fund. receive the blended with the settlement assuming may Even that the Administrator event. ways may argue a blended an in- fixed have he between what has done and Con- consistency what disadvantage any resulting him gress do, pro- told to a wholly the settlement That ducer is unrelated to fund. paid contributed handlers If fund is handlers. payments not attack to cooperatives, as handlers Royal held United States v. Rock Co-op., this Court I supra 561, with all deference am at unable to see how producers can be a better position to attack pay- This rightly ments. suit was dismissed.