International Packers Limited v. Hughes

Decision Date09 January 1967
Docket NumberCiv. No. 6-1724-C-1.
Citation271 F. Supp. 430
PartiesINTERNATIONAL PACKERS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. Harold E. HUGHES, Governor of Iowa et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

James E. Cooney and Kenneth H. Haynie, Des Moines, Iowa, and J. Bradley Colburn and James H. Lundquist, New York City, for plaintiff.

Lawrence F. Scalise, Atty. Gen. of Iowa, Wade P. Clarke, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Iowa, and John R. Ward, Des Moines, Iowa, for defendant.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge, and STEPHENSON and HANSON, District Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STEPHENSON, District Judge.

This action was instituted by International Packers Limited (International) and John Thallon & Co., Inc.1 seeking declaratory judgment that Chapter 7, Laws of the Sixtieth General Assembly of the State of Iowa, Extraordinary Session,2 violates the Constitution of the United States. This Court entered an order on October 28, 1965 (effective October 31, 1965), granting a preliminary injunction in this matter which enjoined the defendants from enforcing the provisions of Chapter 7, Laws of the Sixtieth General Assembly of the State of Iowa, Extraordinary Session, pending final disposition of this case. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court is vested with authority to render a declaratory judgment by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284.3

Plaintiff is engaged in foreign and interstate commerce as a dealer in imported meats. In the course of its business, plaintiff purchases meat which is grown, slaughtered, packaged and frozen in foreign countries, imports the meat into the United States,4 and resells the same to customers throughout the United States, including customers in Iowa. International's customers include meat manufacturers and processors who often blend plaintiff's meat with domestic meats in order to obtain a final meat product. Such meats are then sold to the public through retail outlets. Plaintiff also sells meat directly to the retailers.

The Iowa Meat Labeling Statute (now Section 191.9 of the Iowa Code) under attack by plaintiff requires that any food establishment selling or offering for sale in Iowa any meat or meat product containing any meat imported from any foreign country shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment unless a conspicuous sign is displayed in the place of business indicating that such meat or meat products are imported and unless labels or brands naming the country of origin are placed on each one-quarter, one-half or whole carcass and on each can, case and package containing any imported meat. By its terms, the statute is made applicable to products containing any imported meat or meats so that if foreign meats are combined with domestically produced meats, the resulting product must be labeled to indicate country of origin of such portions of foreign origin.

Although the statutory provisions involved herein do not operate directly upon International, defendants concede that it has standing to sue as a plaintiff in this matter so long as it establishes damages exceeding the $10,000 requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Prior to the passage of the Meat Labeling Act in 1964, plaintiff sold meat to various Iowa customers in an amount approximating $55,000 annually. After passage of the Act, plaintiff's customers refused to purchase its meat, giving as their reason the requirements of the Act. Within a short time sales in Iowa virtually ceased. Plaintiff has satisfied the jurisdictional requirement.5

Plaintiff contends that the Meat Labeling Act violates (1) the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by imposing an unreasonable burden and restriction upon foreign and interstate commerce; (2) the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution by depriving plaintiff of its property without due process of law and denying it the equal protection of the law; and (3) the supremacy clause by conflicting with congressional acts which have preempted the field by imposing various restrictions upon the importation of foreign meat. On this basis, plaintiff seeks a judicial determination that the Iowa Meat Labeling Act is unconstitutional and therefore void.

In order to avoid violation of the commerce clause when enacting laws imposing burdens or restrictions upon interstate of foreign commerce, a state is required to enact regulatory measures which advance its inherent police power to protect the life, liberty, health or property of its citizens. Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U.S. 440, 80 S.Ct. 813, 4 L.Ed.2d 852 (1960). Even when such a regulation advances legitimate interests of the state, it may still be violative of the commerce clause if the state regulatory enactment unduly and unreasonably burdens or restrains interstate commerce when evaluated in terms of the local or state interests it was designed to advance. Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361, 84 S.Ct. 378, 11 L.Ed.2d 389 (1964); Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1951).

The Iowa legislative act now under consideration is both burdensome and discriminatory. In addition to requiring all retailers who ultimately sell products containing plaintiff's imported meats to the consuming public to display a conspicuous sign in their place of business indicating that they are offering imported meats for sale, the Iowa statute requires that brands or labels be placed on "each quarter, half or whole carcass of any such imported meat, and on each can, case or package containing any of the above-mentioned products products containing imported meats, naming the country of its origin." Enforcement of this statutory provision would essentially eliminate the sale of imported meats in Iowa by the plaintiff. Retailers, fearing an adverse reaction from the consuming public, refuse to sell meat products containing imported meat if they are required to inform consumers that foreign meat is being sold. In addition, meat manufacturers and processors purchasing plaintiff's imported meats normally indiscriminately blend the imported meat with domestic meat to obtain a final meat product. The Labeling Act forces such handlers of plaintiff's imported meats to trace the use of such meat throughout their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • CONSOL. FREIGHTWAYS CORP. OF DELAWARE v. Kassel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 14 Febrero 1983
    ...§ 1343(3). See, e.g., New York State Waterways Association, Inc. v. Diamond, 469 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1972); International Packers Ltd. v. Hughes, 271 F.Supp. 430 (S.D.Iowa 1967). Plaintiff suggests that this is because, prior to Congress's enactment of the § 1988 attorney's fee provision in 19......
  • American Meat Institute v. Ball
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 20 Agosto 1981
    ...Company v. Short, 263 F.Supp. 586 (D.Or.1966); Armour and Company v. Nebraska, 270 F.Supp. 941 (D.Neb.1967); International Packers, Ltd. v. Hughes, 271 F.Supp. 430 (S.D.Iowa 1967). It may well be that after trial on the merits, this Court will find that Michigan's statute unreasonably discr......
  • Armour and Company v. State of Nebraska, Civ. No. 1076L.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • 17 Mayo 1967
    ...v. Moss, 252 F.Supp. 641 (D.C.M.D.Tenn.1966); Ness Produce Co. v. Short, 263 F.Supp. 586, (D.C.Or. 1966); International Packers, Limited v. Hughes, 271 F.Supp. 430 (D.C.S.D.Ia. 1967). The decision involving the Oregon statute was appealed to and was affirmed by the Supreme Court, per curiam......

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