John DONALDSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit1958-06-27No. No. 13413

258 F.2d 591

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is affirmed. The district court properly entered summary judgment for the government because the farmer's challenges to the quota and the Act's constitutionality were barred by the statutory requirement to exhaust administrative remedies through the review committee process before any court could consider such claims.

John Donaldson owned a farm in Ohio and was allocated 11 acres for wheat production under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. He planted 19 acres instead, exceeding his allotment and incurring a civil penalty of $205.44. The government sued to collect this penalty, and the district court granted summary judgment in the government's favor. On appeal, Donaldson challenged both the validity of his farm's marketing quota and the constitutionality of the Act itself.

The court found it unnecessary to address Donaldson's constitutional and validity challenges on the merits, as his claims were foreclosed by established precedent upholding agricultural regulation. The court determined that the Act's statutory framework required farmers dissatisfied with their quota to exhaust administrative remedies by requesting a local review committee hearing and, if still dissatisfied, filing an equity action specifically challenging the committee's determination. Because Donaldson never pursued these remedies, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his challenges in the penalty collection action.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a farmer may challenge a marketing quota's validity in a civil penalty collection action without exhausting administrative remedies
Whether the Agricultural Adjustment Act's exclusive jurisdiction provision bars judicial review absent prior administrative appeal
Constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act's application to wheat allotments

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the United States in a civil action to collect wheat marketing penalties.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was the owner and operator of a farm in Huron County, Ohio. Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, Section 1281 et seq., Title 7 U.S.C.A. he was given a wheat acre allotment of 11 acres for the farm for the 1956 crop of wheat. He sowed 19 acres, producing a normal yield of 24 bushels per acre, with a resulting farm marketing excess of wheat of 192 bushels. The rate of penalty applicable to the 1956 crop of wheat was $1.07 per bushel, resulting in a total penalty of $205.44. Appellant did not apply under the Act and regulations for a downward adjustment in the farm marketing excess determined for the farm or for a review by a review committee of the farm marketing quota or any determinations made in connection with said quota or excess, as provided in the Act and regulations. Sections 1340, 1363, Title 7, U.S.C.A.

This action was instituted by the United States for the purpose of collecting civil penalties from the appellant under the provisions of the Act. The facts not being in dispute, both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court sustained the Government’s motion and entered judgment for $205.44, from which this appeal was taken.

Appellant attacks the validity of the farm marketing quota established for his farm and the constitutionality of the Act in its application to him upon various grounds. In view of our disposition of the case, it is unnecessary to discuss these contentions, it being sufficient to point out that in our opinion all of them are without merit under the rulings in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092; Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co., 338 U.S. 604, 70 S.Ct. 403, 94 L.Ed. 381; Rodgers v. United States, 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 992.

The Act provides that any farmer who is dissatisfied with his farm marketing quota may have such quota reviewed by a local review committee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and unless application for review is made within the time provided, the original determination of the farm marketing quota shall be final. If the farmer is dissatisfied with the determination of the review committee he may file a bill in equity against the review committee as defendant for the purpose of obtaining a review of such determination. Sections 1363-1366, Title 7, U.S.C.A. Section 1367, Title 7, U.S.C.A. provides that the jurisdiction conferred by the previous sections to review the legal validity of a determination made by a review committee pursuant to said sections shall be exclusive and “No court of the United States or of any State shall have jursidiction to pass upon the legal validity of any such determination except in a proceeding under said sections.” We are of the opinion that by reason of the foregoing provisions of the Act, the District Court was without jurisdiction to consider the questions raised by the appellant in his answer and that judgment was properly entered against him. Miller v. United States, 6 Cir., 242 F.2d 392; Lee v. Roseberry, D.C., 94 F. Supp. 324, 327, Eastern District of Kentucky.

The judgment is affirmed.