Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59, 8 (2003)

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



Opinion of the Court

lenge. Shamrock Farms, 146 F. 3d, at 1182. In adhering to that ruling in the cases before us today, the Ninth Circuit erred.

The text of the federal statute plainly covers California laws regulating the composition and labeling of fluid milk products, but does not mention laws regulating pricing. Congress certainly has the power to authorize state regulations that burden or discriminate against interstate commerce, Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408 (1946), but we will not assume that it has done so unless such an intent is clearly expressed. South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U. S. 82, 91-92 (1984). While 144 unambiguously expresses such an intent with respect to California's compositional and labeling laws, that expression does not encompass the pricing and pooling laws. This conclusion is buttressed by the separate California statutes addressing the composition and labeling of milk products, on the one hand, and the pricing and pooling of milk on the other. See supra, at 62-65 and this page. The mere fact that the composition and labeling laws relate to the sale of fluid milk is by no means sufficient to bring them within the scope of 144. Because 144 does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge, the Court of Appeals erred in relying on 144 to dismiss the challenge.


Article IV, 2, of the Constitution provides:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Petitioners, who include both individual dairy farmers and corporate dairies, have alleged that California's milk pricing laws violate that provision. The Court of Appeals held that the corporate petitioners have no standing to advance such

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

Last modified: October 4, 2007