Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Civil Aeronautics Board v. American Air Transport, Inc.

Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Am. Air Transp., Inc., 344 U.S. 4 (1952)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1952-10-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Civil Aeronautics Board v. American Air Transport, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
34 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Certified Questions A certificate of questions from a Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(3) is dismissed where the certificate procedure is not an appropriate vehicle for obtaining the resolution of questions concerning the validity of an administrative regulation. 344 U.S. at 5 (citing Labor Board v. White Swan Co., 313 U.S. 23 (1941); Lowden v. Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co., 298 U.S. 160 (1936); White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367 (1931); United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 168 U.S. 505 (1897))
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Discretionary Review Where a certificate from a Court of Appeals must be dismissed, the Supreme Court should not exercise its discretionary power under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(3) to bring up the entire matter in controversy for review, and an application by an administrative agency for an order requiring the Court of Appeals to send up the entire record is denied. 344 U.S. at 5 (citing Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U.S. 178 (1918))
  3. Administrative Law — Review of Agency Action The Supreme Court does not normally review orders of administrative agencies in the first instance, and it will decline to take action that might foreclose the possibility of such review in the Court of Appeals; where a Court of Appeals is deadlocked, that court may resolve the deadlock en banc and give full review to the entire case. 344 U.S. at 5
CIVIL AERO. BD.v. AM. AIR TRANSP.,344 U.S. 4(1952)
73 S.Ct. 2
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ET AL.v. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. ET AL.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
No. 126.
Certificate dismissed October 20, 1952.
A certificate of the Court of Appeals certifying to this Court, under28 U.S.C. § 1254(3), questions concerning the validity of a regulation of the Civil Aeronautics Board is dismissed on the authority of cases cited in the opinion; and an application of the Board for an order requiring the Court of Appeals to send up the entire record, thus bringing up "the entire matter in controversy" for decision, is denied. Pp. 4-5.
The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia enjoined enforcement of a regulation of the
Civil Aeronautics Board unless and until plaintiffs were
afforded "a full and fair evidentiary hearing with respect
thereto." See98 F. Supp. 660. On appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
three judges were unable to agree on a disposition
of the case and certified to this Court questions concerning
the validity of the regulation. The Civil Aeronautics
Board applied to this Court under Rule 37(2) of the
Rules of this Court for an order requiring the Court of
Appeals to send up the entire record.Certificate dismissed
and order denied, pp. 4-5.
Solicitor General PerlmanandEmory T. Nunneley, Jr. for the Civil Aeronautics Board.
PER CURIAM.
The certificate is dismissed.Labor Boardv.WhiteSwan Co.,313 U.S. 23(1941);Lowdenv.NorthwesternNational Bank Trust Co.,298 U.S. 160(1936);WhitePage 5v.Johnson,282 U.S. 367(1931);United Statesv.UnionPacific R. Co.,168 U.S. 505(1897).

The Civil Aeronautics Board has applied to this Court for an order requiring the Court of Appeals to send up the entire record. To grant such an application would bring "the entire matter in controversy" before the Court for decision.28 U.S.C. § 1254(3).

Since the certificate must be dismissed, the Court should not exercise its discretionary power to bring up "the entire matter in controversy" for review. SeeCleveland-CliffsIron Co. v.Arctic Iron Co.,248 U.S. 178(1918). Perhaps the Court of Appeals may now wish to hear this caseen bancto resolve the deadlock indicated in the certificate and give full review to the entire case. This Court does not normally review orders of administrative agencies in the first instance; and the Court does not desire to take any action at this time which might foreclose the possibility of such review in the Court of Appeals.

For these reasons the Board's application is denied.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents.Page 6