Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission
383 U.S. 607 · Decided March 22, 1966 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission was decided on March 22, 1966 unanimously (8–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Byron R. White wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Judicial review of agency actions” in the Judicial Power area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 383 U.S. 607 · 86 S. Ct. 1018 · 16 L. Ed. 2d 131 · 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2750
- Docket number
- 63
- Decided
- March 22, 1966
- Argued
- December 6, 1965
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Byron R. White
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Judicial review of agency actions
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Administrative Procedure Act or Administrative Orders Review Act
- Type of law
- Federal statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Majority | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Abe Fortas | Majority |
Did not participate: Hugo L. Black.
Full case caption
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1965-076, docket 1965-076-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Judicial review of agency actions”
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
- United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc.
- Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.
- Federal Trade Commission v. Mary Carter Paint Co.
- Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
- United States v. Saskatchewan Minerals
Cases on the same legal provision: Administrative Procedure Act or Administrative Orders Review Act
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe
- Sierra Club v. Morton
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. United States
- Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.
- International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Local 134
- Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- Fairfax Family Fund, Inc. v. California
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Gridiron Steel Co.
- Federal Trade Commission v. Mary Carter Paint Co.
- Richmond Television Corp. v. United States
- Swift & Co., Inc. v. WickhamAltered precedent
- United Steelworkers of America v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc.
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error