Stevens v. United States

holding that the District Court had general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 over nonfrivolous constitutional claims of agency bias and prejudgment | holding that the District Court had general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nonfrivolous constitutional claims of agency bias and prejudgment | holding that witness' decision to testify, made solely to avoid being jailed for contempt, is not a matter of free will | holding that witness’ decision to testify, made solely to avoid being jailed for contempt, is not a matter of free will | seeming to be ready to find a due process violation in rulemaking where agency member has unalterably closed mind on critical issue, despite Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. Colorado, 239 U.S. 441, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed. 372 (1915 | arguing in the context of a challenge to an FTC Commissioner’s impartiality that the “jurisprudential concerns ... embodied in the exhaustion doctrine, do not bear on whether a court has jurisdiction but only on whether it should exercise that jurisdiction” | seeming to be ready to find a due process violation in rulemaking where agency member has unalterably closed mind on critical issue, despite Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. Colorado, 239 U.S. 441, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed. 372 (1915 | District Court had general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 over nonfrivolous constitutional claims of agency bias and prejudgment | Judge Leventhal supplied the swing vote notwithstanding his death a month prior to the decision date | fact that testimony of an accomplice came as part of a plea bargain into which the accomplice entered did not diminish violation of his coming forward to implicate defendant | District Court had general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nonfrivolous constitutional claims of agency bias and prejudgment | Judge Leventhal supplied the swing vote notwithstanding his death a month prior to the decision date | "An agency member may be disqualified from such a [rulemaking] proceeding only when there is a clear and convincing showing that he has an unalterably closed mind on matters critical to the disposition of the rulemaking." | “An agency member may be disqualified from such a [rulemaking] proceeding only when there is a clear and convincing showing that he has an unalterably closed mind on matters critical to the disposition of the rulemaking.” | state director of Farmers Home Administration | coconspirator testified pursuant to plea bargain | state director of Farmers Home Administration