327 U.S. 186 (1946)
The Fair Labor Standards Act Administrator issued subpoenas duces tecum to Oklahoma Press Publishing Company and another newspaper publisher under section 11(a) of the Act.1 These subpoenas sought production of specified corporate records to ascertain whether the companies were covered by the Act and whether they were violating its minimum wage and overtime requirements.2
The publishing companies resisted compliance.3 They argued that the Act could not constitutionally apply to newspaper publishing businesses under the First Amendment and the commerce clause.4 They further maintained that any question of coverage had to be adjudicated by a court before the subpoenas could be enforced.5
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's enforcement order after determining that probable cause existed to believe the Act covered the company.6 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court order that had dismissed the enforcement proceeding, directing enforcement on a showing that did not include prior proof of coverage.7
Because of the significance of the questions presented for administration of the Act and the differing rationales in the lower court decisions, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases.8
The enforcement proceedings involved only court orders for the production of documents after the companies had an opportunity to object.9 No government official attempted to enter the companies' premises or seize records without judicial authorization.10
Whether the Administrator may obtain judicial enforcement of subpoenas duces tecum issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act to investigate potential violations without first adjudicating whether the Act covers the petitioners?11
Section 11(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes the Administrator to investigate whether any person has violated the Act or to aid enforcement.12 This includes determining coverage by necessary implication.13 Section 9 empowers use of subpoenas for that purpose.14 Judicial enforcement is available without prior court adjudication of coverage.15
Yes. The subpoenas were issued to determine whether petitioners were violating the Act, including records relating to coverage.16 The Tenth Circuit affirmed enforcement upon a showing of probable cause.17 The Third Circuit reversed dismissal to direct enforcement without requiring prior adjudication of coverage.18 This application shows that Congress authorized the Administrator rather than the district courts to determine coverage in the preliminary investigation.19
The Administrator may obtain judicial enforcement of the subpoenas without first adjudicating coverage.20
Whether enforcement of the subpoenas duces tecum violates the Fourth Amendment?21
The Fourth Amendment guards against abuse by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be particularly described.22 This applies if the inquiry is one the agency is authorized by law to make and the materials are relevant.23 Court orders for production of corporate records after opportunity to object satisfy the reasonableness requirement.24 Such orders do not constitute an actual search and seizure.25
No. The records sought were corporate records of the publishing companies.26 The proceedings involved court orders for production rather than actual searches of premises.27 No officer sought to enter premises against the petitioners' will or to seize records without assent otherwise than pursuant to court orders made after adequate opportunity to present objections.28 The subpoenas specified relevant corporate records for an authorized inquiry, meeting the particularity and reasonableness standards.29
Enforcement of the subpoenas does not violate the Fourth Amendment.30
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Murphy dissented on the ground that administrative subpoenas issued by non-judicial officers invite abuse of power and erode individual liberty.31 He maintained that only confining the subpoena power to the judiciary can insure against corrosion of liberty, even though statutory enforcement might still occur through judicial process.32 In his view the air of authority surrounding an administrative demand leads many to yield without judicial intervention, resulting in invasions of private rights that the courts never review.33
Whether the First Amendment precludes application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to newspaper publishing companies?34
The First Amendment does not forbid application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to newspaper publishing.35 Congress may strike at evils such as low wages and long hours that adversely affect commerce.36 The Act places publishers on the same plane as other businesses.37 It does so without singling them out for special treatment or restraining expression.38
No. Petitioners are newspaper publishing corporations that maintain the Act is not applicable to them for constitutional reasons.39 The Act's purpose is to place publishers upon the same plane with other businesses.40 Exemptions for small newspapers serve that object rather than creating an invalid classification.41 No restraint upon expression results from requiring production of records relevant to wage and hour compliance.42
The First Amendment does not preclude application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to newspaper publishing companies.43
Whether a showing of probable cause that the petitioners are covered by the Act is required before a court may order enforcement of the subpoenas?44
No express statutory requirement of probable cause exists for enforcement of subpoenas under the Fair Labor Standards Act.45 Any constitutional requirement is satisfied by the Administrator's showing that the investigation is authorized by Congress.46 The showing must establish that the purpose is one Congress can order.47 The documents sought must be relevant to the inquiry.48
No. In one case the Tenth Circuit required probable cause while the Third Circuit found a narrower showing sufficient for enforcement.49 The Administrator's allegations of coverage together with the relevance of the records to the authorized investigation satisfy the required standard.50 The showing was sufficient even to establish coverage itself under prevailing interpretations.51
A showing of probable cause that the petitioners are covered by the Act is not required before a court may order enforcement of the subpoenas.52
Whether Congress intended to authorize the Administrator to use subpoenas to investigate coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act prior to any charge or complaint?53
Yes. The subpoenas sought records relating to coverage to determine whether petitioners were violating the Act.56 The statutory language leaves no room to doubt that Congress intended to authorize the Administrator to discover and procure evidence.57 This authority permits making a charge if the facts justify doing so, rather than proving a pending complaint.58
Congress intended to authorize the Administrator to use subpoenas to investigate coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act prior to any charge or complaint.59