Document: 340 U.S. 349 71 S.Ct. 295 95 L.Ed. 329 DEAN MILK CO.v.CITY OF MADISON, WIS., et al. No. 258. Argued Dec. 7, 1950. Jan. 15, 1951. Messrs. Jacob Geffs and George S. Geffs, Janesville, Wis., for appellant. Harold E. Hanson Walter P. Ela, Madison, appellees. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This appeal challenges constitutional validity two sections an ordinance City Wisconsin, regulating sale milk products within municipality's jurisdiction. One section in issue makes it unlawful to sell any as pasteurized unless has been processed bottled at approved pasteurization plant a radius five miles from central square Madison.1 Another section, which prohibits milk, or importation, receipt storage sale, Madison source supply possessing permit issued after inspection by officials, is attacked insofar expressly relieves municipal authorities duty inspect farms located beyond twenty-five center city.2 2 Appellant Illinois corporation engaged distributing Wisconsin. It contended below, does here, that both five-mile limit on plants twenty-five-mile sources violate Commerce Clause Fourteenth Amendment Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court Wisconsin upheld pasteurization.3 As limitation court ordered complaint dismissed want justiciable controversy. 1950, 257 Wis. 308, 43 N.W.2d 480. appeal, contesting rulings, invokes jurisdiction this under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). 3 county seat Dane County. Within are some 5,600 dairy with total raw production excess 600,000,000 pounds annually more than ten times requirements Madison. Aside supplied fluid produced moves large quantities Chicago distant consuming areas, remainder used making cheese, butter other products. At time trial milkshed was not 'Grade A' quality standards recommended United States Public Health Service, no labeled distributed 4 area defined respect encompasses practically all County includes 500 processors, only three general wholesale retail trade Inspection these scheduled once every thirty days performed inspectors, one whom full-time. courts below found question promotes convenient, economical efficient inspection. 5 purchases gathers approximately 950 northern southern none being Its Chemung Huntley, Illinois, about 65 85 respectively denied license its solely because were away. 6 conceded appellant seeks licensed inspected public health Chicago, adopts rating Service. Both ordinances, though latter here issue, largely patterned Model Milk Ordinance However, contends we assume particulars rigorous Chicago. 7 Upon facts find necessary determine raised Clause, agree imposes undue burden interstate commerce. 8 instance enactment falls federal legislation which, proper exercise paramount national power over commerce, excludes measures might otherwise be police states. See Currin v. Wallace, 1939, 306 1, 12—13, 59 379, 385, 83 441. There pertinent regulation Congress, statutes enacted District Columbia indicate Congress recognized appropriateness local milk. D.C.Code, 1940, §§ 33—301 seq. contended, however, authorized before us. 9 Nor can there objection avowed purpose enactment. We difficulties sanitary originating remote areas may present situation 'upon consideration relevant circumstances appears matter appropriately regulated interest safety, well-being communities * *.' Parker Brown, 1943, 317 341, 362—363, 63 307, 319, 87 315; see H. Hood & Sons Du Mond, 1949, 336 525, 531—532, 69 657, 661, 93 865. also since spoken contrary, subject lies sphere state even commerce affected. Control Board Eisenberg Farm Products, 346, 528, 752; Baldwin G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 1935, 294 511, 524, 55 497, 500, 79 1032. 10 But regulation, like provision invalidated supra, practical effect distribution wholesome Illinois. 'The importer keep his drink it, but he not.' Id., page 521, 500. In thus erecting economic barrier protecting major industry against competition without State, plainly discriminates commerce.4 cannot do, unquestioned protect safety people, if reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, adequate conserve legitimate interests, available. Cf. 500; State Minnesota Barber, 1890, 136 313, 328, 862, 866, 34 455. A different view, valid simply professes measure, would mean itself limitations action those laid down Due Process save rare where artlessly discloses discriminate goods. supra. Our then whether discrimination inherent justified view character interests available methods them. Union Brokerage Co. Jensen, 1944, 322 202, 211, 64 967, 973, 88 1227. 11 alternatives If prefers rely upon own officials sources, such readily open hardship could charge actual cost importing producers processors. Sprout South Bend, 1928, 277 163, 169, 48 502, 504, 72 833; Miller Williams, D.C.Md., 12 F.Supp. 236, 242, 244. Moreover, appellee Commissioner testified proponent had submitted provisions controversy alternative proposal based model geographical location processing municipality conformably high enforced receiving city.5 implementing ordinance, city obtains ratings uniform established occur. extent enforcement exporting verifying accuracy specific through routinely request spot checks ratings. consumers 'would safeguarded adequately' either expressed preference. sanitarian Department recommends adoption Ordinance. agreed officer relying evaluation Service conditions producing areas. To adopt essential protection placing discriminatory invite multiplication preferential destructive very Clause. Under presented, must yield principle 'one dealings another place position isolation.' 527, 502. 13 For reasons conclude judgment sustaining reversed. 14 thought unnecessary pass limitation, apparently part reason made academic decision upholding section. our conclusion provision, determination appellant's contention now necessary. therefore, vacate remand further proceedings inconsistent principles announced opinion. so ordered. 15 Judgment vacated cause remanded. 16 BLACK, DOUGLAS MINTON concur, dissenting. 17 Today's holding invalidates 7.21 following reasoning: (1) coming Illinois; (2) commerce; (3) imposed where, reasonable, I disagree Court's premises, reasoning, judgment. 18 exclude anywhere else. require sold city. finding courts, nor evidence justify appellant, Dean Company, unable have area. matter, far record shows, easily comply whenever wants to. Therefore, Dean's personal preference pasteurize keeps out 19 Characterization 'discriminatory burden' merely statement result, think incorrect. prohibit intrastate who prefer represents good-faith attempt safeguard sanitation possible. While bound findings, do understand overturn fact 7.21, regulations, trade, 'discriminates' 20 should believes milk-inspection insure cleanliness healthfulness difficult explain why uses 'reasonable alternative' concept when today refuses apply same freedom speech. Feiner People New York, 315, 303. while invoked First rights, e.g., Schneider Jersey, 308 147, 162, 60 146, 151, 84 155, heretofore considered appropriate weapon striking laws. Since Chief Marshall, left states municipalities free bona fide regulations 'to authority decides control Rate Cases (Simpson Shepard), 230 352, 406, 33 729, 743, 57 1511; Gibbons Ogden, Wheat. 203, 204, 23; Mintz Baldwin, 289 349—350, 53 611, 613, 77 1245; judicial policy refusing invalidate genuine laws approvingly noted recent opinions measuring stringent standards. See, 364. No case cited, none, law struck ground method safeguarding good as, better than, called review. my use elevates right traffic profit above people guard purity their daily diet 21 If, followed, strike satisfied doubt substitutes proposes lower satisfy basis knowledge. And leads me substitute suggested safe requires. 22 proposals processors pay fees 'sources.' Experience fee gives rise prolonged litigation calculation collection charges. E.g., Capitol Greyhound Lines Brice, 339 542, 70 806. throw into quagmire uncertainty jeopardizes admirable systems force many municipalities. nothing us indicates system costly having Surely resolving drawing 'judicial knowledge' information comparative costs, convenience, effectiveness. 23 second 'Model Ordinance.' findings relative merits chosen assure healthful entitled label Indeed, Health, drafted Ordinance, suggests 'minimum' only. provide continuous investigation ordinance. 11, moreover, required depend plants, supplying them milkshed. direct positive did meet requirements. 24 Furthermore, 'spot checks' regulations. shows random plants: rates thousand sampling hundred farms. technique employed plants. neither necessarily last check' years tried. 25 From what fails show, pure they receive On uphold law. least, giving parties chance get ultimate issues thinks crucial—namely, today. General Ordinances provides follows: 'It shall person, association sell, offer possession intent deliver cream manner herein provided portion known Square, housing machinery, equipment facilities, Health.' 7.11, person bring jurisdiction, therein, served, product 'Only complies retain permit. 'On filing application Commissioner, named therein inspections investigations made. obligated permits (25) Square. *' note relied Dyer Council Beloit, 1947, 250 27 733, vacated, 1948, 333 825, 68 87, 92 1111. immaterial outside subjected proscription moving Brimmer Rebman, 1891, 138 78, 82—83, 213, 214, 862. Section 1939 provides: 'Milk points limits routine .......... .........., and/or equivalent ordinance; himself properly enforcing provisions.' comment contained Code: approve awarded agency 90 percent method.' Security Agency, Bulletin 220 (1939), 145.

Category: 7