Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59, 4 (2003)

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

62

HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. v. LYONS

Opinion of the Court

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 917, 7 U. S. C. 7254, exempts California's milk pricing and pooling regulations from scrutiny under the Commerce Clause; and (2) whether the individual petitioners' claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause is foreclosed because those regulations do not discriminate on their face on the basis of state citizenship or state residence.

I

Government regulation of the marketing of raw milk has been continuous since the Great Depression.1 In California, three related statutes establish the regulatory structure for milk produced, processed, or sold in California. First, in 1935, the State enacted the Milk Stabilization and Marketing Act, Cal. Food & Agric. Code Ann. 61801-62403 (West 2001), "to establish minimum producer prices at fair and reasonable levels so as to generate reasonable producer incomes that will promote the intelligent and orderly marketing of market milk . . . ." 61802(h). Then, California created requirements for composition of milk products in the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947. 32501- 39912. The standards created under this Act mandate minimum percentages of fat and solids-not-fat in dairy products and often require fortification of milk by adding solids-not-fat. In 1967, California passed another milk pricing Act, the Gonsalves Milk Pooling Act, 62700-62731, to address deficiencies in the existing pricing scheme. Together, these three Acts (including numerous subsequent revisions) create the state milk marketing structure: The 1935 and 1967 Acts establish the milk pricing and pooling plans, while the 1947 Act governs the composition of milk products sold in California.

While it serves the same purposes as the federal marketing orders, California's regulatory program is more complex.

1 The history and purpose of federal regulation of milk marketing is described in some detail in Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 172-187 (1969).

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

Last modified: October 4, 2007