Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc v. Paul Paul v. Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc, s. 45

Decision Date13 May 1963
Docket NumberNos. 45,49,s. 45
Citation373 U.S. 132,83 S.Ct. 1210,10 L.Ed.2d 248
PartiesFLORIDA LIME AND AVOCADO GROWERS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Charles PAUL, Director of the Department of Agriculture of California, et al. Charles PAUL, Director of the Department of Agriculture of California, et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA LIME AND AVOCADO GROWERS, INC., et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 374 U.S. 858, 83 S.Ct. 1861.

[Syllabus from pages 132-133 intentionally omitted] Isaac E. Ferguson, Van Nuys, Cal., for appellants in No. 45 and for appellees in No. 49.

John Fourt, Sacramento, Cal., for appellees in No. 45 and for appellants in No. 49.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 792 of California's Agricultural Code, which gauges the maturity of avocados by oil content, prohibits the transportation or sale in California of avocados which contain 'less than 8 per cent of oil, by weight * * * excluding the skin and seed.'1 In contrast, federal marketing orders approved by the Secretary of Agriculture gauge the maturity of avocados grown in Florida by standards which attribute no significance to oil content.2 This case presents the question of the constitutionality of the California statute insofar as it may be applied to exclude from California markets certain Florida avocados which, although certified to be mature under the federal regulations, do not uniformly meet the California requirement of 8% of oil.

Appellants in No. 45, growers and handlers of avocados in Florida, brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin the enforcement of § 792 against Florida avocados certified as mature under the federal regulations. Appellants challenged the constitutionality of the statute on three grounds: (1) that under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, the California standard must be deemed displaced by the federal standard for determining the maturity of avocados grown in Florida; (2) that the application of the California statute to Florida-grown avocados denied appellants the Equal Protection of the Laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) that its application unreasonably burdened or discriminated against interstate marketing of Florida-grown avocados in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8. A three-judge District Court initially dismissed the complaint. D.C., 169 F.Supp. 774. On direct appeal we held, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73, 80 S.Ct. 568, 4 L.Ed.2d 568, that the suit was one for a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281, and presented a justiciable controversy to be tried on the merits. After a trial the three-judge court denied an injunction against the enforcement of § 792, on the ground that the proofs did not establish that its application to Florida-grown avocados violated any provision of the Federal Constitution. 197 F.Supp. 780. The District Court held for several reasons that the Supremacy Clause did not operate to displace § 792; no actual conflict existed between the statute and the federal marketing orders; neither the Agricultural Act nor the marketing orders occupied the field to the exclusion of the state statute; and Congress had not ordained that a federal marketing order was to give a license to Florida producers to 'market their avocados without further inspection by the states' after compliance with the federal maturity test. 197 F.Supp., at 787. Rather, the court observed, '(t)he Federal law does not cover the whole field of interstate shipment of avocados' but by necessary implication leaves the regulation of certain aspects of distribution to the States. Further, the District Court found no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the California statute was applicable on identical terms to Florida and California producers, and was reasonably designed to enforce a traditional and legitimate interest of the State of California in the protection of California consumers. The District Court concluded, finally, that § 792 did not unreasonably burden or discriminate against interstate commerce in out-of-state avocados-that the 8% oil content test served in practice only to keep off California grocers' shelves fruit which was unpalatable because prematurely picked. This holding rested in part on the conclusion that mature Florida fruit had not been shown to be incapable of attaining 8% oil content, since only a very small fraction of Florida avocados of certain varieties in fact failed to meet the California test.3

Both parties have brought appeals here from the District Court's judgment: the Florida growers urge in No. 45 that the court erred in not enjoining enforcement of the state statute against Florida-grown avocados; in No. 49 the California state officials appeal on the ground that the action should have been dismissed for want of equity jurisdiction rather than upon the merits. We noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals. 368 U.S. 964, 965, 82 S.Ct. 439, 437, 7 L.Ed.2d 394. We affirm the judgment in the respect challenged by the cross-appeal in No. 49. In No. 45 we agree that appellants have not sustained their challenges to § 792 under the Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses. However, we reverse and remand for a new trial insofar as the judgment sus- tains § 792 against appellants' challenge to the statute grounded on the Commerce Clause. We hold that the effect of the statute upon interstate commerce cannot be determined on the record now before us.

The California statute was enacted in 1925. Like the federal marketing regulations applicable to appellants, this statute sought to ensure the maturity of avocados reaching retail markets.4 The District Court found on sufficient evidence that before 1925 the marketing of immature avocados had created serious problems in California.5 An avocado, if picked prematurely, will not ripen properly, but will tend to decay or shrivel and become rubbery and unpalatable after purchase. Not only retail consumers but even experienced grocers have difficulty in distinguishing mature avocados from the immature by physical characteristics alone.6 Thus, the District Court concluded, '(t)he marketing of * * * (immature) avocados cheats the consumer' and adversely affects demand for and orderly distribution of the fruit. 197 F.Supp., at 783.

The federal marketing regulations were adopted pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. The declared purposes of the Act are to restore and maintain parity prices for the benefit of producers of agricultural commodities, to ensure the stable and steady flow of commodities to consumers, and 'to establish and maintain such minimum standards of quality and maturity * * * as well effectuate such orderly marketing of such agricultural commodities as will be in the public interest.' § 2(3), 7 U.S.C. § 602(3). Whenever he finds that it would promote these declared policies, the Secretary is empowered upon notice and hearing to adopt federal marketing orders and regulations for a particular growing area, § 8c(3), (4), 7 U.S.C. § 608c(3), (4). Orders thus proposed by the Secretary become effective only when approved by a majority of the growers or producers concerned, § 8c(8), (9), 7 U.S.C. § 608c(8), (9).

In 1954, after proceedings in compliance with the statute, 19 Fed.Reg. 3439, the Secretary promulgated orders governing the marketing of avocados grown in South Florida.7 The orders established an Avocado Administrative Committee, composed entirely of South Florida avocado growers and handlers. 7 CFR § 969.20. This Committee has authority to draft and recommend to the Secretary various marketing regulations governing the quality and maturity of South Florida avocados. The maturity test for the South Florida fruit is based upon a schedule of picking dates, sizes and weights annually drafted and recommended by the Committee and promulgated by the Secretary.8 The regulations forbid picking and shipping of any fruit before the prescribed date, although an exemption from the picking-date schedule may be granted by the Committee.9 The regulations drafted by the Committee and promulgated by the Secretary concern other qualities and physical characteristics of Florida avocados besides maturity. See 22 Fed.Reg. 6205, 7 CFR §§ 51.3050-51.3053, 51.3064. All regulated avocados, including those shipped under picking-date exemptions, must be inspected for compliance with certain quality standards by the Federal-State Inspection Service, a joint authority supervised by the United States and Florida Departments of Agriculture.

Almost all avocados commercially grown in the United States come either from Southern California or South Florida. The California-grown varieties are chiefly of Mexican ancestry, and in most years contain at least 8% oil content when mature.10 The several Florida species, by contrast, are of West Indian and Guatemalan ancestry. West Indian avocados, which constitute some 12% of the total Florida production, may contain somewhat less than 8% oil when mature and ready for market. They do not, the District Court found, attain that percentage of oil 'until they are past their prime.' 197 F.Supp., at 783. But that variety need not concern us in this case since the District Court concluded on sufficient evidence that 'poor shipping qualities and short retail store shelf-life' make it commercially unprofitable, regardless of the oil test, to market the variety in California. On the other hand, the Florida hybrid and Guatemalan varieties, which do not encounter such handicaps, may reach maturity before they attain 8% oil content. The District Court concluded, nevertheless, that § 792 did not unreasonably interfere with their marketability since these species 'attain or exceed 8% oil content while in a prime commercial marketing condition,' so that the California test was 'scientifically valid as applied to'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1607 cases
  • Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 14, 2018
    ...and objectives. Bank of Am. v. City & Cnty. of SanFrancisco, 309 F.3d 551, 558 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963)), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (Dec. 20, 2002); and Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)). ......
  • R. E. Spriggs Co. v. Adolph Coors Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1974
    ...of the regulated subject permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained. (Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S 132, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 10 L.Ed.2d 248; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, Supra, at p. 443 of 362 U.S., 80 S.Ct. The history of the Sherman Anti......
  • Chanoff v. US Surgical Corp., Civ. No. 3:93CV01522 (AHN).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • January 4, 1994
    ...to "occupy the field," or when the state claims are in direct conflict with the federal law. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963), reh'g denied, 374 U.S. 858, 83 S.Ct. 1861, 10 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1963). It is settled, however, t......
  • Powell v. Huntington Nat'l Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • December 28, 2016
    ...where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul , 373 U.S. 132, 142–43, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963), or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
63 books & journal articles
  • State Drone Laws: a Legitimate Answer to State Concerns or a Violation of Federal Sovereignty
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 31-2, December 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...to comply with competing federal and state law or regulation is physically impossible.").94. Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 143 (1963) (upholding a California law requiring avocados to contain less than eight percent of oil while the federal law had no such require......
  • CHAPTER 15 FEDERAL ROYALTY ACCOUNTING FOR DISPROPORTIONATE SALES FROM FEDERAL UNITS AND CORRESPONDING STATE ISSUES (TAKES vs. ENTITLEMENTS)
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Royalty Valuation and Management (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...in Dallas v. Kinabrew, 589 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979) error ref'd nre (1980) 15-86Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963) 15-76Gazin v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 367 P.2d 1010 (Okla. 1961) 15-82Harry Bourg Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing North Am......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 18, 102 S.Ct. 3304, 73 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1982), 603 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 10 L.Ed.2d 248(1963), 856-58, 860 Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 119 S.......
  • Litigating Global Warming: Likely Legal Challenges to Emerging Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Programs in the United States
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 39-5, May 2009
    • May 1, 2009
    ...allowance trading with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963), or where state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 09. March 2, 2019
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...the state action would actually conflict with the federal law or its purposes. See, e.g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). The U.S. Supreme Court, in New York Blue Cross v. Travelers Ins., 514 645 (1995) ......
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 52, No. 30. July 23, 2022
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...of the stream of commerce does not, ipso facto, oust all state regulation at the other end. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, RULES AND REGULATIONS 4127 PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 52, NO. 30, JULY 23, 2022 any additional requirements that DEP puts into upcom- ing ......

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