Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin
340 U.S. 349 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state or local health and safety law that places a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce is unconstitutional if reasonable, non-discriminatory alternatives exist that are adequate to protect the legitimate local interests.
Facts:
- The City of Madison, Wisconsin, passed an ordinance making it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it had been processed and bottled at a plant within a five-mile radius of the city's central square.
- The ordinance also prohibited the sale of milk from farms located more than twenty-five miles from the center of the city.
- Dean Milk Co., an Illinois corporation, purchased, pasteurized, and bottled milk at its plants in Illinois, which were located approximately 65 and 85 miles from Madison.
- Dean Milk Co.'s milk was certified as 'Grade A' under Chicago's ordinance, which adopted standards recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service.
- Madison officials denied Dean Milk Co. a license to sell its milk within the city solely because its pasteurization plants were outside the five-mile radius mandated by the ordinance.
- The city's health commissioner testified that alternatives, such as adopting the Model Milk Ordinance which relies on ratings from the producing jurisdiction, would adequately safeguard Madison consumers.
Procedural Posture:
- Dean Milk Co. challenged the Madison, Wisconsin ordinance in a Wisconsin state court.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the five-mile limit on pasteurization plants.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin dismissed Dean Milk Co.'s challenge to the twenty-five-mile limit on milk sources, finding no justiciable controversy.
- Dean Milk Co. (appellant) appealed the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, with the City of Madison (appellee) as the responding party.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that prohibits the sale of milk unless it is pasteurized within a five-mile radius of the city violate the Commerce Clause, even if it applies equally to in-state and out-of-state milk producers?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes, the municipal ordinance violates the Commerce Clause. The ordinance imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce by erecting an economic barrier that protects a major local industry from out-of-state competition. While protecting public health is a legitimate local purpose, Madison cannot do so in a way that discriminates against interstate commerce when reasonable and adequate non-discriminatory alternatives are available. The Court identified two such alternatives: charging the out-of-state producer for the reasonable cost of inspection by Madison officials, or adopting a system based on the U.S. Public Health Service's Model Milk Ordinance, which would rely on the sanitary ratings of the producing jurisdiction. Because less burdensome alternatives exist, the ordinance's practical effect of excluding wholesome milk from Illinois is an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No, the municipal ordinance does not violate the Commerce Clause. The ordinance is a good-faith health regulation, not a discriminatory economic measure, and the Court should not invalidate it simply because it believes alternative methods might be adequate. The ordinance does not exclude out-of-state milk, but rather requires all milk, whether from Illinois or Wisconsin, to be pasteurized locally to ensure proper inspection. The alternatives suggested by the majority—a fee-based inspection system and reliance on Chicago's standards—are not proven to be as safe or effective as Madison's chosen method. By striking down this law, the Court improperly elevates the right to engage in commerce for profit above the power of a municipality to guard the health and safety of its citizens.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision interpreting the 'dormant' Commerce Clause. It establishes that even facially neutral health and safety regulations can be unconstitutional if they have a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce and less restrictive alternatives are available. The ruling created a form of balancing test, requiring courts to scrutinize the local interest against the burden on commerce and the feasibility of non-discriminatory alternatives. This decision significantly limits the ability of states and municipalities to enact protectionist measures under the guise of their police powers, reinforcing the constitutional principle of a unified national market.
