## Facts

- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found Moog Industries, Inc. engaged in unlawful price discrimination in violation of § 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.
- The FTC issued a cease-and-desist order directing Moog to stop the discriminatory pricing practices.
- Moog sought judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the FTC’s order.
- After affirmance, Moog asked the Eighth Circuit to hold entry of judgment in abeyance, arguing it would suffer serious financial loss if forced to comply while competitors remained free to use similar pricing practices.
- The Eighth Circuit denied postponement, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicting circuit approaches to whether courts may delay otherwise valid FTC orders pending similar action against competitors.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of appeals, when reviewing a valid FTC cease-and-desist order, may postpone the order’s operation against one firm until similar orders have been entered against that firm’s competitors.
2. Whether a reviewing court should consider a request to delay an FTC order’s effectiveness when the postponement issue was not first presented to the FTC.
3. What standard governs judicial interference with the FTC’s determination regarding the effective timing of an otherwise valid remedial order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit’s judgment allowing the FTC order to become effective without judicial postponement.
- The Court held that whether a valid FTC order should take effect before competitors are similarly restrained is primarily for the FTC to determine.
- The Court held a reviewing court should consider postponement only if the issue was raised before the FTC.
- The Court held the FTC’s determination on such timing matters should not be overturned absent a patent abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- The timing and effectiveness of an otherwise valid FTC cease-and-desist order, including whether to delay it based on competitive conditions, is committed in the first instance to the FTC’s remedial discretion.
- Reviewing courts ordinarily should not modify ancillary features of a valid FTC order, such as its effective date, merely to mitigate claimed competitive disadvantage.
- A court should consider a request to postpone an FTC order only if the request was presented to the Commission in the administrative process.
- Judicial review of the FTC’s decision on postponement is highly deferential; reversal is appropriate only upon a patent abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the FTC order without delay and limited judicial power to postpone the operation of valid FTC remedial orders, requiring parties to raise timing objections before the agency and allowing court interference only upon a patent abuse of discretion.


Moog Indus., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 355 U.S. 411 (1958)