ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - SUBPOENA POWER IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Authors

Arthur B. Lathrop, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

The Secretary of Labor, acting under the authority vested in her by the Walsh-Healey Act, instituted an administrative proceeding against the petitioner charging violations of the minimum and overtime payment provisions of a government contract. Upon the petitioner's refusal to furnish certain records believed to be essential in determining jurisdiction, the secretary issued a subpoena duces tecum for their production. Shortly thereafter, this suit was begun in the district court to obtain an enforcement order directing the petitioner to obey the subpoena. The petitioner, contending that the secretary was without jurisdiction to investigate the plants and employees involved, successfully resisted the suit in the district court. The secretary appealed to the circuit court of appeals, where the decision was reversed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held (two justices dissenting), Congress vested in the Secretary of Labor the right and duty to determine the coverage of the act and the plants and employees included within her jurisdiction. Therefore, it was the duty of the district court to enforce the subpoena on the pleadings without taking any testimony whatsoever on the issue of jurisdiction. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, (U.S. 1943) 63 S. Ct. 339.

Recommended Citation

Arthur B. Lathrop, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - SUBPOENA POWER IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, 41 Mich. L. Rev. 959 (1943).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol41/iss5/13