United States v. Carolene Products Co.
304 U.S. 144 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is presumed constitutional and will not be overturned unless it lacks any rational basis. The existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed, and courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the legislature.
Facts:
- Carolene Products Co. manufactured a product named 'Milnut'.
- Milnut was a compound created by mixing condensed skimmed milk with coconut oil.
- The resulting product was made 'in imitation or semblance of' condensed milk or cream.
- Carolene Products Co. shipped packages of Milnut in interstate commerce.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Carolene Products Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for violating the Filled Milk Act.
- Carolene Products Co. filed a demurrer to the indictment, challenging the Act's constitutionality.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the indictment against Carolene Products Co.
- The United States, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the Filled Milk Act of 1923, which prohibits the shipment of skimmed milk compounded with non-milk fats in interstate commerce, exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause or violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
No, the Filled Milk Act is a constitutional exercise of congressional power. Congress is free to exclude from interstate commerce articles it reasonably conceives to be injurious to the public health or that facilitate fraud. The power to regulate commerce extends to prohibiting shipments, and such regulation is permissible so long as it does not violate other constitutional provisions like the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Here, Congress had evidence from committee hearings that filled milk, lacking essential vitamins from milk fat, was detrimental to public health and that its similarity to pure milk facilitated consumer deception. The legislative judgment that a total prohibition, rather than mere labeling, was necessary to protect the public is a rational one, and it is not the role of the courts to second-guess that judgment for ordinary commercial regulation. The existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is presumed.
Concurrence - Mr. Justice Butler
I concur in the result that the case should proceed. While the indictment is sufficient on its face, the legislative declaration that filled milk is injurious and fraudulent should not be considered conclusive. At trial, Carolene Products should be permitted to introduce evidence to show that its product is, in fact, wholesome and not deceptive. If the Act were interpreted to prohibit a product that is demonstrably not injurious or fraudulent, it would be repugnant to the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, the statutory declaration creates a rebuttable presumption, and the defendant must have the opportunity to tender an issue of fact.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark in constitutional law for establishing the strong presumption of constitutionality afforded to economic regulations under the rational basis test. It effectively ended the Lochner era's substantive due process scrutiny of economic laws. The case's most enduring legacy is Footnote Four, which carved out areas where this presumption might not apply and where a 'more searching judicial inquiry' could be warranted: legislation that restricts political processes, infringes on specific Bill of Rights protections, or is directed at 'discrete and insular minorities.' This footnote laid the intellectual foundation for the modern tiered scrutiny framework used in constitutional analysis.
