Dean Milk Co v. City of Madison, Wis

Citation95 L.Ed. 329,71 S.Ct. 295,340 U.S. 349
Decision Date15 January 1951
Docket NumberNo. 258,258
PartiesDEAN MILK CO. v. CITY OF MADISON, WIS., et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Jacob Geffs and George S. Geffs, Janesville, Wis., for appellant.

Messrs. Harold E. Hanson and Walter P. Ela, Madison, Wis., for appellees.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal challenges the constitutional validity of two sections of an ordinance of the City of Madison, Wisconsin, regulating the sale of milk and milk products within the municipality's jurisdiction. One section in issue makes it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it has been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within a radius of five miles from the central square of Madison.1 Another section, which prohibits the sale of milk, or the importation, receipt or storage of milk for sale, in Madison unless from a source of supply possessing a permit issued after inspection by Madison officials, is attacked insofar as it expressly relieves municipal authorities from any duty to inspect farms located beyond twenty-five miles from the center of the city.2

Appellant is an Illinois corporation engaged in distributing milk and milk products in Illinois and Wisconsin. It contended below, as it does here, that both the five-mile limit on pasteurization plants and the twenty-five-mile limit on sources of milk violate the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the five-mile limit on pasteurization.3 As to the twenty-five-mile limitation the court ordered the complaint dismissed for want of a justiciable controversy. 1950, 257 Wis. 308, 43 N.W.2d 480. This appeal, contesting both rulings, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(2).

The City of Madison is the county seat of Dane County. Within the county are some 5,600 dairy farms with total raw milk production in excess of 600,000,000 pounds annually and more than ten times the requirements of Madison. Aside from the milk supplied to Madison, fluid milk produced in the county moves in large quantities to Chicago and more distant consuming areas, and the remainder is used in making cheese, butter and other products. At the time of trial the Madison milkshed was not of 'Grade A' quality by the standards recommended by the United States Public Health Service, and no milk labeled 'Grade A' was distributed in Madison.

The area defined by the ordinance with respect to milk sources encompasses practically all of Dane County and includes some 500 farms which supply milk for Madison. Within the five-mile area for pasteurization are plants of five processors, only three of which are engaged in the general wholesale and retail trade in Madison. Inspection of these farms and plants is scheduled once every thirty days and is performed by two municipal inspectors, one of whom is full-time. The courts below found that the ordinance in question promotes convenient, economical and efficient plant inspection.

Appellant purchases and gathers milk from approximately 950 farms in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin, none being within twenty-five miles of Madison. Its pasteurization plants are located at Chemung and Huntley, Illinois, about 65 and 85 miles respectively from Madison. Appellant was denied a license to sell its products within Madison solely because its pasteurization plants were more than five miles away.

It is conceded that the milk which appellant seeks to sell in Madison is supplied from farms and processed in plants licensed and inspected by public health authorities of Chicago, and is labeled 'Grade A' under the Chicago ordinance which adopts the rating standards recommended by the United States Public Health Serv- ice. Both the Chicago and Madison ordinances, though not the sections of the latter here in issue, are largely patterned after the Model Milk Ordinance of the Public Health Service. However, Madison contends and we assume that in some particulars its ordinance is more rigorous than that of Chicago.

Upon these facts we find it necessary to determine only the issue raised under the Commerce Clause, for we agree with appellant that the ordinance imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

This is not an instance in which an enactment falls because of federal legislation which, as a proper exercise of paramount national power over commerce, excludes measures which might otherwise be within the police power of the states. See Currin v. Wallace, 1939, 306 U.S. 1, 12—13, 59 S.Ct. 379, 385, 83 L.Ed. 441. There is no pertinent national regulation by the Congress, and statutes enacted for the District of Columbia indicate that Congress has recognized the appropriateness of local regulation of the sale of fluid milk. D.C.Code, 1940, §§ 33—301 et seq. It is not contended, however, that Congress has authorized the regulation before us.

Nor can there be objection to the avowed purpose of this enactment. We assume that difficulties in sanitary regulation of milk and milk products originating in remote areas may present a situation in which 'upon a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances it appears that the matter is one which may appropriately be regulated in the interest of the safety, health and well-being of local communities * * *.' Parker v. Brown, 1943, 317 U.S. 341, 362—363, 63 S.Ct. 307, 319, 87 L.Ed. 315; see H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 1949, 336 U.S. 525, 531—532, 69 S.Ct. 657, 661, 93 L.Ed. 865. We also assume that since Congress has not spoken to the contrary, the subject matter of the ordinance lies within the sphere of state regulation even though interstate com- merce may be affected. Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 1939, 306 U.S. 346, 59 S.Ct. 528, 83 L.Ed. 752; see Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 1935, 294 U.S. 511, 524, 55 S.Ct. 497, 500, 79 L.Ed. 1032.

But this regulation, like the provision invalidated in Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., supra, in practical effect excludes from distribution in Madison wholesome milk produced and pasteurized in Illinois. 'The importer * * * may keep his milk or drink it, but sell it he may not.' Id., 294 U.S. at page 521, 55 S.Ct. at page 500. In thus erecting an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the State, Madison plainly discriminates against interstate commerce.4 This it cannot do, even in the exercise of its unquestioned power to protect the health and safety of its people, if reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, adequate to conserve legitimate local interests, are available. Cf. Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., supra, 294 U.S. at page 524, 55 S.Ct. at page 500; State of Minnesota v. Barber, 1890, 136 U.S. 313, 328, 10 S.Ct. 862, 866, 34 L.Ed. 455. A different view, that the ordinance is valid simply because it professes to be a health measure, would mean that the Commerce Clause of itself imposes no limitations on state action other than those laid down by the Due Process Clause, save for the rare instance where a state artlessly discloses an avowed purpose to discriminate against interstate goods. Cf. H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, supra. Our issue then is whether the discrimination inherent in the Madison ordinance can be justified in view of the character of the local interests and the available methods of protecting them. Cf. Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 1944, 322 U.S. 202, 211, 64 S.Ct. 967, 973, 88 L.Ed. 1227.

It appears that reasonable and adequate alternatives are available. If the City of Madison prefers to rely upon its own officials for inspection of distant milk sources, such inspection is readily open to it without hardship for it could charge the actual and reasonable cost of such inspection to the importing producers and processors. Cf. Sprout v. City of South Bend, 1928, 277 U.S. 163, 169, 48 S.Ct. 502, 504, 72 L.Ed. 833; see Miller v. Williams, D.C.Md., 1935, 12 F.Supp. 236, 242, 244. Moreover, appellee Health Commissioner of Madison testified that as proponent of the local milk ordinance he had submitted the provisions here in controversy and an alternative proposal based on § 11 of the Model Milk Ordinance recommended by the United States Public Health Service. The model provision imposes no geographical limitation on location of milk sources and processing plants but excludes from the municipality milk not produced and pasteurized conformably to standards as high as those enforced by the receiving city.5 In implementing such an ordinance, the importing city obtains milk ratings based on uniform standards and established by health authorities in the jurisdiction where production and processing occur. The receiving city may determine the extent of enforcement of sanitary standards in the exporting area by verifying the accuracy of safety ratings of specific plants or of the milkshed in the distant jurisdiction through the United States Public Health Service, which routinely and on request spot checks the local ratings. The Commissioner testified that Madison consumers 'would be safeguarded adequately' under either proposal and that he had expressed no preference. The milk sanitarian of the Wisconsin State Board of Health testified that the State Health Department recommends the adoption of a provision based on the Model Ordinance. Both officials agreed that a local health officer would be justified in relying upon the evaluation by the Public Health Service of enforcement conditions in remote producing areas.

To permit Madison to adopt a regulation not essential for the protection of local health interests and placing a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce would invite a multiplication of preferential trade areas destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause. Under the circumstances here presented, the regulation must yield to the principle that 'one state in its dealings with another may not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
328 cases
  • R. E. Spriggs Co. v. Adolph Coors Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 Febrero 1974
    ...The Cartwright Act does not impose an economic barrier protecting local industry such as was condemned in Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329. Neither does it unduly burden interstate commerce in that the Cartwright Act, as construed in Corwin v. Los Angeles N......
  • Epstein v. Lordi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 14 Diciembre 1966
    ...is justified by "the character of the local interests and the available means of protecting them." Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 354, 71 S.Ct. 295, 298, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1950); Southern Pacific Co. v. State of Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S.Ct. 1515, 89 L.Ed. 1915 The local inte......
  • Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 29 Diciembre 2017
    ...production and trade by halting its transportation through the pipeline"). In footnote 38 it cites Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison , 340 U.S. 349, 354, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1951) and Trailer Marine Transport Corp. v. Rivera Vazquez , 977 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1992) for the propositio......
  • Arrow Lakes Dairy, Inc. v. Gill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 27 Diciembre 1961
    ...Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Pullman Co. (supra); City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies (supra); Cf. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 353-354, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1950). It should be applied when there is a likelihood that the state courts will be able to dispose of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Dormant Commerce Clause Update – 4th Circuit Panel Talks Trash
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 11 Diciembre 2013
    ...Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330 (2007) (copy available here). Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific......
  • The Current Landscape Of Federal Law Governing Cannabis
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 23 Diciembre 2021
    ...in the face of changing federal law. Footnotes 1 H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949). 2 Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specifi......
  • The Current Landscape Of Federal Law Governing Cannabis
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 23 Diciembre 2021
    ...in the face of changing federal law. Footnotes 1 H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949). 2 Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specifi......
14 books & journal articles
  • Legal After-Shocks on the Energy Seismograph: Judicial Prohibition of Recent State Regulation and Promotion of Power
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-6, June 2015
    • 1 Junio 2015
    ...150. See Alliance for Clean Coal v. Miller, 44 F.3d 591, 596-97, 25 ELR 20510 (7th Cir. 1995). 151. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951). 152. West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy , 512 U.S. 186 (1994), held that a diferential burden placed at any point in the stream of commer......
  • CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 49 No. 3, June 2019
    • 22 Junio 2019
    ...771, 792-96 (2010). (116) Constitutional Implications of Regional C[O.sub.2], supra note 7, at 362-64. (117) Id. at 362. (118) Id. (119) 340 U.S. 349(1951). (120) Constitutional Implications of Regional C[O.sub.2], supra note 7, at 362-63 (citing Dean Milk v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (......
  • Congress, the courts, and solid waste transport: good fences don't always make good neighbors.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 25 No. 1, January 1995
    • 1 Enero 1995
    ...the national political process" through state experimentation). (32) 112 S. Ct. 2019 (1992). (33) Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) (holding invalid a city ordinance barring milk not inspected within five miles of city limits); Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891) (inva......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...of Educ. v. Brinkman (Dayton II), 443 U.S. 526, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979), 1124-25 Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1951), 249, 869, 874, 893-94 Deaton, United States v., 332 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 2003), 732 Debtor Reorganizers v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT