ISSUE:
Whether the Secretary of Agriculture provided a proper and “full hearing” as required by the statute before issuing the order?
Whether the Secretary's order was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence?
RULE:
The Fundamental Fairness Doctrine: The Court found that fundamental fairness was violated when the Secretary adopted findings affecting market agencies' businesses and livelihoods without giving them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, despite the proceedings having a significant impact on their property rights.
The Full Hearing Rule: While the Secretary physically held hearings and collected evidence, the Court invalidated his order because he failed to provide a "full hearing" when he relied on findings prepared by prosecutors from the Bureau of Animal Industry without giving the market agencies any chance to know or contest these findings before making them final.
The Quasi-Judicial Procedural Requirements: The Court held that since the proceeding effectively put the market agencies' existence at risk, it was quasi-judicial in nature and thus required basic judicial fairness - which was violated when the Secretary had ex parte discussions with prosecutors and adopted their findings without allowing the affected parties to examine or challenge them.