## Facts

- A distributor marketed “Nutrilite Food Supplement,” a vitamin-mineral product shipped in interstate commerce, accompanied by a promotional booklet.
- Federal officials concluded the product was “misbranded” because the accompanying booklet’s claims were materially misleading, though the ingredients were not alleged to be harmful.
- Under FDCA § 304(a), the Federal Security Administrator made an ex parte administrative finding of probable cause, “from facts found, without hearing,” that the labeling was materially misleading.
- Based on that finding, federal officials conducted eleven seizures of the product across different districts and filed eleven in rem libel (condemnation) actions.
- The distributor did not dispute the government’s authority to bring a single libel action, but challenged the multiplicity of seizures and the lack of a prior probable-cause hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires a pre-seizure administrative hearing before initiating multiple seizures of allegedly misbranded goods under FDCA § 304(a).
2. Whether a federal district court sitting in equity may review and enjoin the Administrator’s administrative determination of probable cause supporting multiple seizures.
3. Whether the absence of a health danger from the product changes the due process analysis or limits the government’s seizure authority.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment that had invalidated the multiple-seizure provision and enjoined its enforcement.
- Due process did not require a pre-seizure administrative hearing; it was satisfied by the opportunity for a full judicial hearing in the ensuing libel proceedings.
- The district court lacked equitable jurisdiction to review or enjoin the Administrator’s probable-cause determination.
- The product’s non-dangerousness did not alter the constitutionality of the statutory scheme for misbranded articles.
- The statute’s remedy for burdens from multiple suits was consolidation of the libel actions for a single trial, not an injunction against seizures.

## Legal Principles

- When only property rights are involved, due process is satisfied if there is an opportunity for a hearing and judicial determination at some stage of the proceeding; a post-seizure hearing in condemnation litigation can suffice.
- An agency’s ex parte probable-cause determination that serves as a prerequisite to filing enforcement litigation is not itself a final adjudication of rights and generally is not independently reviewable in equity.
- FDCA § 304(a) permits multiple seizures of misbranded articles based on an administrative probable-cause finding made without a hearing, with merits resolved in the subsequent judicial proceedings.
- The FDCA may treat dangerous and non-dangerous “misbranded” products similarly for seizure purposes, including when misbranding is based on materially misleading labeling.
- Statutory consolidation is the prescribed mechanism to address multiplicity of libel actions arising from multiple seizures.

## Conclusion

The Court held that FDCA multiple seizures based on an ex parte administrative probable-cause finding do not violate due process because claimants receive a full judicial hearing in the libel proceedings, and courts may not use equity to preemptively review or enjoin the agency’s probable-cause determination.


Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594 (1950)