International Workers Order, Inc. v. Clark

District of Columbia

International Workers Order, Inc. v. Clark

88 F. Supp. 873, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1935

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 12, 1949

DocketNo. 2348-48

StatusPublished

This text of 88 F. Supp. 873 (International Workers Order, Inc. v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Workers Order, Inc. v. Clark, 88 F. Supp. 873, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1935 (D.D.C. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

McGUIRE, District Judge.

Motion to dismiss granted.

Plaintiff has no standing to sue. It is hornbook law that in order to maintain an action of an equitable character, plaintiff must show unlawful invasion of some legally protected right. Stark v. Wickard, 1944, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S.Ct. 559, 88 L.Ed. 733. And it is equally true that not all governmental action, harmful though it admittedly may be to particular individuals, is susceptible of judicial review. Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 125, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108; Tennessee Electric Power Company v. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 137, 59 S.Ct. 366, 83 L.Ed. 543, and see particularly Standard Computing Scale Company v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780.

Columbia Broadcasting System v. U.S., 316 U.S. 407, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 86 L.Ed. 1563, relied upon heavily by the plaintiff is distinguishable. There the Court held that the administrative exercise of rule-making power which purports to establish controlling (italics supplied) criteria for future administrative action is present regulation and reviewable as such under the Urgent Deficiencies Act. The Attorney General’s action here establishes no such criteria. It merely sets up an evidentiary rule. See generally, Employers Group v. National War Labor Board, 1944, 79 U.S.App. D.C. 105, 143 F.2d 145, the language on page 151 being particularly pertinent-: “Appellants’ demand that we annul and enjoin the Board’s order therefore amounts to a demand that we prevent the Board from giving the President advice which appellants contend would be erroneous. A court might as well be asked to prevent the Secretary of State or the Attorney General from giving alleged erroneous advice. * * *” See also, United States v. Los Angeles & S. L. Railroad Co., 273 U.S. 299, 310, 311, 312, 47 S.Ct. 413, 71 L.Ed. 651.

The motion for leave to intervene and to add defendants is denied.

Counsel will prepare proper Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McGUIRE, District Judge.

Motion to dismiss granted.

Plaintiff has no standing to sue. It is hornbook law that in order to maintain an action of an equitable character, plaintiff must show unlawful invasion of some legally protected right. Stark v. Wickard, 1944, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S.Ct. 559, 88 L.Ed. 733. And it is equally true that not all governmental action, harmful though it admittedly may be to particular individuals, is susceptible of judicial review. Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 125, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108; Tennessee Electric Power Company v. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 137, 59 S.Ct. 366, 83 L.Ed. 543, and see particularly Standard Computing Scale Company v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780.

Columbia Broadcasting System v. U.S., 316 U.S. 407, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 86 L.Ed. 1563, relied upon heavily by the plaintiff is distinguishable. There the Court held that the administrative exercise of rule-making power which purports to establish controlling (italics supplied) criteria for future administrative action is present regulation and reviewable as such under the Urgent Deficiencies Act. The Attorney General’s action here establishes no such criteria. It merely sets up an evidentiary rule. See generally, Employers Group v. National War Labor Board, 1944, 79 U.S.App. D.C. 105, 143 F.2d 145, the language on page 151 being particularly pertinent-: “Appellants’ demand that we annul and enjoin the Board’s order therefore amounts to a demand that we prevent the Board from giving the President advice which appellants contend would be erroneous. A court might as well be asked to prevent the Secretary of State or the Attorney General from giving alleged erroneous advice. * * *” See also, United States v. Los Angeles & S. L. Railroad Co., 273 U.S. 299, 310, 311, 312, 47 S.Ct. 413, 71 L.Ed. 651.

The motion for leave to intervene and to add defendants is denied.

Counsel will prepare proper Order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F. Supp. 873, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-workers-order-inc-v-clark-dcd-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack