Toilet Goods Association, Inc., v. Gardner

387 U.S. 158 (1967)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps sued for pre-enforcement declaratory and injunctive relief against Gardner (Ds), the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Ps claim that D exceeded his statutory authority in for a regulation authorizing him to suspend certification service to persons who refused to permit D employees free access to manufacturing facilities, processes, and formulae involved in the manufacture of color additives. The District Court held that the Act did not prohibit this type of preenforcement suit, that a case and controversy existed, that the issues presented were justiciable, and that no reasons had been presented by the D to warrant declining jurisdiction on discretionary grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment that jurisdiction to hear the suit existed as to three of the challenged regulations but sustained the D's contention that judicial review was improper as to a fourth. Each side below sought review here from the portions of the Court of Appeals' decision adverse to it, the Government as petitioner in Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., No. 438, and the Toilet Goods Association and other plaintiffs in the present case. The court granted certiorari to both.