Opinion ID: 1977391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Means rationally related to end.

Text: To be constitutional, a reasonable legislative purpose must also be accomplished by means which are consistent with due process. This does not mean that the legislature must choose the least restrictive alternative in carrying out its intent. The requirement is that 'the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.' [9] Here it should be noted that the legislature has not chosen the drastic means of totally prohibiting the sale of Coffee-Rich. In Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. McDowell, [10] this court affirmed, by an equally divided vote, a lower court decision declaring unconstitutional a prior attempt to ban totally the sale of nondairy whiteners like Coffee-Rich. Similarly, in Dairy Queen of Wisconsin, Inc. v. McDowell, [11] this court rejected an attempt to forbid totally the sale of Dairy Queen products on the ground that they were misleading imitations of ice cream. Finally, in John F. Jelke Co. v. Emery, [12] the court declared unconstitutional a law which completely prohibited the sale of uncolored oleomargarine on the ground that it was a misleading butter substitution. The enactment now in question is only a partial prohibition (although an important part) of the sale and service of nondairy whiteners, and is thus qualitatively unlike those prior enactments struck down by this court. Coffee-Rich can still be sold by retail stores and used by institutions like schools and hospitals. Indeed, Coffee-Rich has stipulated that it makes substantial sales of this kind in Wisconsin. More importantly, the legislature has prohibited sales only in the restaurant setting, where deception is most likely to occur. The legislature reasonably did not prohibit retail sales of Coffee-Rich in those cases where the product is sold at retail in properly labeled containers, which shoppers are in the habit of perusing as they make their conscious buying choices. Likewise, dispensation of Coffee-Rich through vending machines is also allowed, provided the machine bears a prominent label informing the purchaser that Coffee-Rich, and not some type of cream, is being sold. Once again, the legislature could reasonably have found that a person reads the information posted on a vending machine before he makes his choice. In the restaurant setting, however, the legislature reasonably took notice of the fact that coffee is often whitened out of the presence of the patron, and without asking him whether he objects to substitution of a nondairy whitener for cream. In this context the opportunity for conscious consumer choice is substantially reduced, and the opportunity for deceptive substitution greatly increases. It can be assumed that the legislature imposed its partial prohibition in regard to restaurant sales specifically because of this different factual situation. This choice of means is therefore rationally and substantially related to the end in view. Prohibition of restaurant sale and service will prevent consumer deception where it is most likely to occur.