Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59, 2 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

60

HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. v. LYONS

Syllabus

"Nothing in this Act . . . shall be construed to . . . limit the authority of . . . California . . . to . . . effect any law . . . regarding . . . the percentage of milk solids or solids not fat in fluid milk products sold . . . in [that] State . . . ; or . . . the labeling of such fluid milk products . . . ." Section 144 plainly covers California laws regulating the composition and labeling of fluid milk products, but does not mention pricing laws. This Court will not assume that Congress has authorized state regulations that burden or discriminate against interstate commerce unless such an intent is clearly expressed. South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U. S. 82, 91. Because 144 does not express such an intent with respect to California's pricing and pooling laws, the Ninth Circuit erred in relying on that section to dismiss petitioners' Commerce Clause challenge. Pp. 64-66.

2. The Ninth Circuit's rejection of the individual petitioners' Privileges and Immunities Clause claims is inconsistent with Chalker v. Birmingham & Northwestern R. Co., 249 U. S. 522, 527, in which this Court held that the practical effect of a Tennessee tax—which did not on its face draw any distinction based on citizenship or residence, but did impose a higher rate on persons having their principal offices out of State—was discriminatory, given that an individual's chief office is commonly in the State of which he is a citizen. In these cases as well, the absence of an express statement in the California laws and regulations identifying out-of-state residency or citizenship as a basis for disparate treatment is not a sufficient basis for rejecting petitioners' claim. In so holding, this Court expresses no opinion on the merits of that claim. Pp. 66-67.

259 F. 3d 1148, vacated and remanded.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Parts I and III of which were unanimous, and Part II of which was joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 68.

Roy T. Englert, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs were Lawrence S. Robbins, Charles M. English, Jr., Wendy M. Yoviene, and Nicholas C. Geale.

Barbara McDowell argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007