Document: 539 U.S. 59 HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. ET AL.v.LYONS, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, AL. No. 01-950. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 22, 2003. Decided June 9, 2003.* In most the country, but not California, minimum price paid to dairy farmers producing raw milk is regulated pursuant federal marketing orders, which guarantee a uniform for producers, through pooling mechanisms require processors different classes products pay prices. California has adopted similar, although more complex, program regulate prices by producers. Three state statutes create California's structure: 1935 and 1967 Acts establish pricing plans, while 1947 Act governs composition sold in State. Under scheme, fluid premium (part goes into equalization pool) that higher than During 1990's, it became profitable some buy from out-of-state 1997, Department Food Agriculture amended its regulations contributions pool on purchases. Petitioners, farmers, brought these suits, alleging 1997 amendment unconstitutionally discriminates against them. Without reaching merits, District dismissed both cases. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding, inter alia, 1996 statute immunized laws Commerce Clause challenge, individual petitioners' Privileges Immunities claims failed because did not, face, classifications based any individual's residency or citizenship. Held: 1. are exempted scrutiny § 144 Federal Improvement Reform 1996, 7 U. S. C. 7254, provides: "Nothing this . shall be construed limit authority California. to. effect law regarding percentage solids fat sold... [that] State .; labeling such ." Section plainly covers regulating products, does mention laws. This will assume Congress authorized burden discriminate interstate commerce unless an intent clearly expressed. South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 82, 91. Because express with respect laws, erred relying section dismiss challenge. Pp. 64-66. 2. Circuit's rejection inconsistent Chalker Birmingham & Northwestern R. Co., 249 522, 527, held practical Tennessee tax—which face draw distinction citizenship residence, impose rate persons having their principal offices out State—was discriminatory, given chief office commonly he citizen. cases as well, absence statement identifying basis disparate treatment sufficient rejecting claim. so expresses no opinion merits 66-67. 259 F. 3d 1148, vacated remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered Court, Parts I III were unanimous, Part II was joined REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ. THOMAS, filed concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 68. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Roy T. Englert, Jr., argued cause petitioners With him briefs Lawrence Robbins, Charles M. English, Wendy Yoviene, Nicholas Geale. 3 Barbara McDowell States amicus curiae urging reversal. her brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Kneedler, Mark B. Stern. 4 J. Urban respondents Bill Lockyer, Manuel Medeiros, General, Richard Frank, Chief Bruce Reeves Urban, Attorneys Andrea Hackett Henningsen.† 5 JUSTICE STEVENS Court. 6 States, including orders. Those orders Thus, example, price, provides partial subsidy cheese manufacturers who net lower receive. See West Lynn Creamery, Healy, 512 186, 189, n. (1994). Legislature similar before us today, producers challenging constitutionality program. They present two questions: (1) whether 110 Stat. 917, exempts under Clause; (2) claim foreclosed those do residence. 8 * Government regulation been continuous since Great Depression.1 three related regulatory structure produced, processed, First, 1935, enacted Milk Stabilization Marketing Act, Cal. Agric. Code Ann. §§ 61801-62403 (West 2001), "to producer at fair reasonable levels generate incomes promote intelligent orderly market milk. 61802(h). Then, created requirements Products 1947. 32501-39912. standards mandate percentages solids-not-fat often fortification adding solids-not-fat. 1967, passed another Gonsalves Pooling 62700-62731, address deficiencies existing scheme. Together, (including numerous subsequent revisions) 9 While serves same purposes complex. typically all only end uses determine processors' to, withdrawals from, pools, whereas scheme farmers' production commands "quota price" receives "overbase price," divided five classes. 10 complexities relevant cases; what fact either producers.2 early conditions made quota overbase guaranteed yet they had when making in-state least partially responsible advantage enjoyed make contribution other words, purchase resold required processor farmer also pool, would cheaper contribution. 11 plan purchases.3 It imposition requirement gave rise litigation. Petitioners 01-950 operate farms Nevada; 01-1018 Arizona. contend response, officials merely eliminated unfair competitive product itself. 12 constitutional claims, Appeals affirmed. 1148 (2001). Relying earlier decision Shamrock Farms Co. Veneman, 146 1177 (1998), court corporate standing raise Clause, individuals' amendments "on citizenship." 3d, 1156. We granted certiorari review holdings, 537 1099 (2003), doing we reach 13 respects, State's set forth exceed Drug Administration (FDA). For standard reduced requires contain percent (which include protein, calcium, lactose, nutrients). 38211 2001). 8.25 21 CFR 131.110, 101.62 (2002). Some arguably pre-empted Congress' enactment Nutrition Labeling Education 1990, 104 2353, contains prohibition application quality foods moving commerce. 343-1(a). Civ-S-95-318 (ED Cal., Sept. 25, 1996). response decision, sought exemption FDA Congress. Farms, 1180. Before acted, responded favorably our disposition That statute, 14 provision preempt, prohibit, otherwise directly indirectly, continue law, regulation, regarding— 15 "(1) retail marketed California; 16 "(2) regard fat." 7254. 17 Thereafter, suit Secretary validity compositional case, programs well negative 1182. adhering ruling erred. 18 text pricing. certainly power authorize commerce, Prudential Ins. Benjamin, 328 408 (1946), done 91-92 (1984). unambiguously expression encompass conclusion buttressed separate addressing one hand, other. supra, 62-65 page. mere relate sale means bring them within scope 144. insulate 19 Article IV, 2, Constitution 20 "The Citizens each entitled several States." dairies, have alleged violate provision. advance claim, rejected "do challenge first second 522 (1919). agree. 22 Chalker, tax imposed citizen resident Alabama engaging business constructing railroad violated Clause. did, however, Taking judicial notice "the citizen," concluded discriminatory. Id., 527. Whether should interpreted applying proxies differential residents, prohibiting classification discriminating matter need decide stage interpretation, agree 23 24 judgment vacated, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 25 ordered. Notes: Together 01-1018,Ponderosa Dairy et al. Lyons, Secretary, Agriculture, al., court. &#x2020; Briefs amici reversal Nevada Brian Sandoval, Nevada, respective follows: Mike Hatch Minnesota, McGrath Montana, Hardy Myers Oregon, Christine O. Gregoire Washington, Peggy A. Lautenschlager Wisconsin; Continental Products, Inc., Benjamin Yale; Institute Thomas Knox. John Vlahos Western Dairymen affirmance. history purpose described detail inZuber Allen, 396 168, 172-187 (1969). manufacture reflect relative amounts uses. Each processor's mix produces monthly "blend multiplied total term meaning; usually refers receives. SeeWest After amendment, whose blend exceeds must purchases part. join Court's respectfully dissent II, holds "does challenge." Ante, 66. Although statutory analysis, nevertheless affirm "[t]he Constitution, makes little sense, proved virtually unworkable application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Town Harrison, 520 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve striking down statute.

Category: 7