Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
Reference: 340 U.S. 474 (1951)
Term: 1950
Important Dates
Argued: November 6-7, 1950 Decided: February 26, 1951
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated and remanded
Majority
Frederick Vinson •Felix Frankfurter •Sherman Minton •Hugo Black •William Douglas •Tom Clark •Harold Burton •Stanley Reed •Robert H. Jackson

Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board is a case decided on February 26, 1951, by theUnited States Supreme Court. It involved the effect of theAdministrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act on thejudicial review procedures of Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously to vacate the judgment of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, since that court had not used the findings of the National Labor Relations Board's trial examiner in its review of the Board's order. The Supreme Court then remanded the case to the Appeals Court for reconsideration.^[1]

In brief:The NLRB ordered Universal Camera Corporation to reinstate an employee it had fired after the employee testified under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.^[2] Universal challenged the order, which was then reviewed by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which upheld it. In the course of its review, however, the Appeals Court held that they could not consider the findings of the NLRB trial examiner because the NLRB had rejected those findings. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NLRB's rejection of the findings did not preclude the Appeals Court from considering the examiner's findings, and that the court had a duty to take these findings into account, though not necessarily to accept them.^[3]

Why it matters:In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that theAdministrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act required an Appeals Court to meet the same standard of proof in its judicial review, which the court called thesubstantial evidence test.

Background

Administrative State
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Judicial deference •Nondelegation •Executive control •Procedural rights •Agency dynamics
Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia

TheAdministrative Procedure Act of 1946 set uniform procedures for federal agencies to create and enact regulations, as well as for courts toreview those actions. Section 706(2)(e) of the act established asubstantial evidence standard for review of agency actions.

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, commonly known as the Wagner Act. The updated statute contained the following provision in Section 10(e):

A critical fact of the case was that the NLRB rejected the findings of its own trial examiner. The Appeals Court then held that it could not take those findings into account when making its ruling (seeDeference (administrative state)). The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation in its majority opinion and took up the case in large part to clarify this procedure.

The apparent contradiction between the ruling of theSecond Circuit of Appeals in this case and the one by theSixth Circuit Court of Appeals inLabor Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co. (1949) was another factor that compelled the Supreme Court to take up the case and issue formal guidance.^[6]

Oral argument

Oral arguments were held on November 6 & 7, 1950. The case was decided on February 26, 1951.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals had not been barred from using the NLRB trial examiner's report in its review of the NLRB's order, vacating the judgment of that court and remanding the case to it for review in light of the new guidance.

Felix Frankfurter wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief JusticeFrederick Vinson and JusticesSherman Minton,Tom Clark,Harold Burton,Stanley Reed,Robert H. Jackson,Hugo Black andWilliam Douglas.

JusticesHugo Black andWilliam Douglas concurred with Parts I and II of the majority opinion but dissented from Part III.^[1]

Opinions

Opinion of the court

Writing for the court, JusticeFelix Frankfurter identified the impact of theAdministrative Procedure Act and Taft-Hartley Act on judicial review as the key issue in the case. Pointing to similarities in wording in the two bills, and records from their drafting processes, Frankfurter held that both bills set the same standard for the evidence required by an Appeals Court to uphold an agency action, which he called the substantial evidence test.

He held that the text and spirit of the acts thus enabled reviewing courts to invalidate agency actions if the test was not met.

Since the trial examiner's report constituted part of the whole record, the Appeals Court had a duty to at least consider his findings. The Board's rejection of those findings did not preclude the court from doing this.

The next key question was whether those two acts had "altered the scope of review other than to require that substantiality be determined in the light of all that the record relevantly presents."^[1] Frankfurter argued that they had increased that scope.

In light of this new direction, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals could not satisfy the substantial evidence test and approve the Board's order without using the findings of the trial examiner, and so remanded the case for reconsideration.

Concurring opinions

JusticesHugo Black andWilliam Douglas concurred with Parts I and II of the majority opinion.

Dissenting opinions

JusticesHugo Black andWilliam Douglas dissented from Part III of the majority opinion.

Impact

The case reaffirmed the substantial evidence test as the standard for judicial review of agency actions. Justice Frankfurter explored the legislative history of both acts and argued that in both cases, Congress had expressed a desire to increase the standard of evidence used in judicial review through the use of the substantial evidence test.

He quoted the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure to clarify the relationship between federal agencies and Courts of Appeals.

Frankfurter concluded that review of agency actions was primarily the duty of the Courts of Appeals, and that the Supreme Court should intervene only when there was an issue of higher legal significance.

See also

• Deference (administrative state)
• Judicial review
• Administrative Procedure Act
• Separation of powers
• Rulemaking
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court

External links

• Full Text of the Case via Justia
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

v • e The Administrative State Main The Administrative State Project main page •Administrative State Project Index •Glossary of administrative state terms •Quotes about the administrative state •Administrative state •Rulemaking •Deference •Adjudication •Nondelegation doctrine •Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker Pillars Agency control •Executive control •Judicial control •Legislative control •Public control Reporting Changes to the Federal Register •Completed OIRA review of federal administrative agency rules •Federal agency rules repealed under the Congressional Review Act •Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2016 Laws Administrative Procedure Act •Antiquities Act •Civil Service Reform Act •Clayton Antitrust Act •Communications Act of 1934 •Congressional Review Act •Electronic Freedom of Information Act •Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 •Federal Housekeeping Statute •Federal Reserve Act •Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 •Freedom of Information Act •Government in the Sunshine Act •Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 •Information Quality Act •Interstate Commerce Act •National Labor Relations Act •Paperwork Reduction Act •Pendleton Act •Privacy Act of 1974 •Regulatory Flexibility Act •REINS Act •REINS Act (Wisconsin) •Securities Act of 1933 •Securities Exchange Act of 1934 •Sherman Antitrust Act •Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act •Truth in Regulating Act •Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Cases Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner •A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States •Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp •Auer v. Robbins •Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe •Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California •Field v. Clark •Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation •Humphrey's Executor v. United States •Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha •J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States •Lucia v. SEC •Marshall v. Barlow's •Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency •Mistretta v. United States •National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius •National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company •National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. •Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan •Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation •Skidmore v. Swift & Co. •United States v. Lopez •United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. •Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board •Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Wayman v. Southard •Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service •Whitman v. American Trucking Associations •Wickard v. Filburn •Wiener v. United States Terms Adjudication (administrative state) •Administrative judge •Administrative law •Administrative law judge •Administrative state •Arbitrary-or-capricious test •Auer deference •Barrier to entry •Bootleggers and Baptists •Chevron deference (doctrine) •Civil servant •Civil service •Code of Federal Regulations •Codify (administrative state) •Comment period •Compliance costs •Congressional Record •Coordination (administrative state) •Deference (administrative state) •Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) •Enabling statute •Ex parte communication (administrative state) •Executive agency •Federal law •Federal Register •Federalism •Final rule •Formal rulemaking •Formalism (law) •Functionalism (law) •Guidance (administrative state) •Hybrid rulemaking •Incorporation by reference •Independent federal agency •Informal rulemaking •Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) •Major rule •Negotiated rulemaking •Nondelegation doctrine •OIRA prompt letter •Organic statute •Pragmatism (law) •Precautionary principle •Promulgate •Proposed rule •Publication rulemaking •Regulatory budget •Regulatory capture •Regulatory dark matter •Regulatory impact analysis •Regulatory policy officer •Regulatory reform officer •Regulatory review •Rent seeking •Retrospective regulatory review •Risk assessment (administrative state) •Rulemaking •Separation of powers •Significant regulatory action •Skidmore deference •Statutory authority •Substantive law and procedural law •Sue and settle •Sunset provision •Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions •United States Code •United States Statutes at Large Bibliography "Administrative Law - The 20th Century Bequeaths an 'Illegitimate Exotic' in Full and Terrifying Flower" by Stephen P. Dresch (2000) "Confronting the Administrative Threat" by Philip Hamburger and Tony Mills (2017) "Constitutionalism after the New Deal" by Cass R. Sunstein (1987) Federalist No. 23 by Alexander Hamilton (1787) "From Administrative State to Constitutional Government" by Joseph Postell (2012) "Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule (2002) "Rulemaking as Legislating" by Kathryn Watts (2015) "The Checks & Balances of the Regulatory State" by Paul R. Verkuil (2016) "The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Keith E. Whittington and Jason Iuliano (2017) "The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis" by Ronald J. Pestritto (2007) "The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State" by Gary Lawson (1994) "The Study of Administration" by Woodrow Wilson (1887) "The Threat to Liberty" by Steven F. Hayward (2017) "Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law" by Richard A. Epstein (2008) Agencies Administrative Conference of the United States •United States Civil Service Commission •U.S. Government Accountability Office •U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs •U.S. Office of Management and Budget