## Facts

- Milk producers in the Greater Boston marketing area sold milk through handlers regulated by a federal milk marketing order issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA).
- The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated Order No. 4, which set minimum prices and established a payment formula for producers.
- The formula authorized deductions from producers’ returns for certain payments to cooperatives under specified provisions of the order.
- Producers alleged the challenged provisions unlawfully diverted money belonging to them and sought an injunction barring enforcement of those provisions.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding producers lacked a cause of action under the AMAA; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether milk producers alleging that a federal milk marketing order unlawfully diverts their funds have standing and a judicially cognizable equitable claim to enjoin the Secretary’s action despite the AMAA’s silence on judicial review in this posture.
2. Whether federal courts may provide judicial examination of allegedly unauthorized administrative action affecting private rights absent an exclusive alternative remedy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits.
- The Court held the producers had standing and stated a claim for equitable relief to restrain allegedly unauthorized diversion of their funds.
- The Court concluded that judicial examination of the validity of the Secretary’s action was available even without an express statutory review provision.
- The Court did not decide the substantive legality of the challenged order provisions; it held only that the complaint was entitled to judicial consideration.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts’ general equity jurisdiction permits suits to restrain executive officers from threatened wrongs when plaintiffs allege interference with a legal right and no exclusive remedial scheme forecloses such relief.
- Judicial review may be implied where a statute is silent, based on Congress’s creation of courts to resolve cases and controversies involving alleged infringement of individual rights by unauthorized administrative action.
- A plaintiff asserting that an agency action exceeds statutory authority and causes a concrete financial injury states a justiciable controversy suitable for judicial determination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that milk producers could invoke equitable jurisdiction to obtain judicial review of a milk marketing order’s alleged unauthorized diversion of their funds, and it reinstated the case for adjudication on the merits without resolving whether the order provisions were lawful.


Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (1944)