|
Dean Milk Co. v City of
Madison Wisconsin
340 U. S. 349 (1951)
Author: Sam Biers
Facts: The City of Madison,
WI passed an ordinance regulating the sale of milk and milk
products within the city’s jurisdiction. One section
makes it unlawful to sell any milk unless processed and bottled
within a five mile radius, and the second section prohibited the
sale, storage, receipt, or importation of milk, in Madison,
if it originated, further than 25 miles unless inspected by
Madison inspector. Dean Milk is a company engaged in distribution
of milk and milk products in Illinois and Wisconsin. Dean was
denied a license to sell it products within Madison based on the
distance of its company from Madison.
Issue: Whether the Madison
ordinance, places an undue burden on interstate commerce?
Holding: Yes.
Procedure: S. Ct. of WI
held the 5 miles limit on pasteurization valid, and dismissed the
25 mile limit on sources of milk for lack of a justiciable
controversy. S. Ct. Reversed the 5 mile limit and remand for
further proceedings on 25 mile limit on sources of milk.
Rule: Absent an action by
Congress, through the Commerce Clause, States may enact
quarantine or inspection laws that effect interstate commerce. [Bradley]
Regulation to ensure safety is a police power. 10th
Amendment- confers to states, therefor local governments power to
regulate safety, and health.
Ct. Rationale: This
regulation imposes an economic barrier upon milk produced and
pasteurized in Illinois. The Madison ordinance protects
local industry against competition from outside the State.
Madison plainly discriminates against interstate commerce.
There are reasonable and alternatives available. The
Commissioner himself testified that he submitted an alternative
plan, in line with the Model Milk Ordinance, and without
geographical limitations. That plan also called for milk not
produced or pasteurized within the municipality to conform to
standards as high as the receiving city.
PL A : The 5 mile limit on
pasteurization and the 25 mile limit on sources places an undue
burden upon interstate commerce.
Def A: The ordinance
represents a good faith attempt to safeguard public health by
making adequate sanitation inspection possible.
Minority View - States and
municipalities are free to pass bona fide health regulations
subject only to the paramount authority of Congress if it decides
to assume control. This regulation as all health and safety
regulations imposes some burden upon interstate commerce, but it
does not discriminate against commerce.
[Pike] The burden imposed on commerce
should be weighed against the local benefits sought to be
achieved.
[Raymond v Rice] State regulations
that touch upon safety are valid, unless those concerns are
illusory. The constitutionality of a safety regulation
depends on the weight and nature of the regulation in concern
against the burden imposed on the course of interstate commerce.
Hannibal v Husen ] A State may not,
under the cover of its police powers, substantially prohibit or
burden either foreign or interstate commerce.
Mintz Test - Inspection Measures
a) Must be made in
good faith; and
b) Appropriate for
the prevention of the health and safety concern;
c) Protects the
public health.
|
