Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

GROLIER INC. v. F.T.C. Case Brief

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit1980
615 F.2d 1215

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: An encyclopedia company challenged an FTC order, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was biased due to his prior role as an FTC Commissioner’s advisor. The court set aside the order, finding the FTC wrongly denied discovery into the ALJ’s prior involvement with the case.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies that the APA’s separation of functions rule applies functionally, based on an individual’s actual prior involvement in a case, not their formal job title. It prohibits former attorney-advisors who performed investigative functions from later adjudicating that same case.

GROLIER INC. v. F.T.C. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated an administrative action against Grolier, Inc. for unfair and deceptive trade practices. After two Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) were replaced, the case was assigned to ALJ von Brand. During the proceedings, ALJ von Brand disclosed that he had previously served as an attorney-advisor to an FTC Commissioner for eight years, a period during which the FTC had investigated Grolier. Grolier moved to disqualify ALJ von Brand, arguing his prior role violated the separation of functions requirement in § 554(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Grolier also requested discovery of FTC records to determine the extent of the ALJ’s involvement in prior Grolier matters. The ALJ, stating he did not recall working on the Grolier case, denied the disqualification request. The full Commission affirmed, holding that the role of an attorney-advisor does not constitute an “investigative or prosecuting function” under § 554(d) and therefore denied both the disqualification and discovery motions. The FTC ultimately adopted the ALJ’s findings and issued a cease and desist order, which Grolier appealed.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Administrative Procedure Act’s separation of functions requirement in § 554(d) apply to an Administrative Law Judge who previously served as an attorney-advisor to an agency commissioner, thereby requiring the agency to permit discovery into the judge’s prior involvement in the same case?

Yes. The court held that the prohibition in APA § 554(d) is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum do

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the Administrative Procedure Act’s separation of functions requirement in § 554(d) apply to an Administrative Law Judge who previously served as an attorney-advisor to an agency commissioner, thereby requiring the agency to permit discovery into the judge’s prior involvement in the same case?

Conclusion

This decision establishes that the APA's separation of functions requirement is applied Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqu

Legal Rule

Under § 554(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 554(d)), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui off

Legal Analysis

The court interpreted the scope of "investigative or prosecuting functions" under APA Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut en

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An agency employee is disqualified from adjudicating a case under APA
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More