Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Carolene Products Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1938 · Constitutional Law

rational basisfootnote fourdiscrete and insular minoritiestiered scrutinyCommerce ClauseFifth Amendmentdue processFilled Milk Act

Facts

Congress enacted the Filled Milk Act, which prohibits interstate shipment of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat so as to resemble milk or cream. Appellee shipped in interstate commerce packages of "Milnut," a compound of condensed skimmed milk and coconut oil made in imitation or semblance of condensed milk or cream. The indictment alleged, in the words of the statute, that Milnut was an adulterated article of food injurious to public health and was not within the statutory exception for certain prepared food products. Appellee argued that the Act exceeded Congress's commerce power and violated the Fifth Amendment.

Issue

Whether the Filled Milk Act's prohibition on interstate shipment of filled milk exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce or violates the Fifth Amendment by depriving appellee of property without due process. Also, whether the statute's legislative declaration about filled milk being injurious to health and a fraud upon the public forecloses constitutional challenge.

Rule

Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to prohibit interstate shipment of articles whose use it may reasonably conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals, or welfare, subject only to constitutional limitations. Regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is presumed constitutional and will not be invalidated under due process unless, in light of facts known or generally assumed, it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests on some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of legislators. Legislative findings do not conclusively bar challenge, but judicial inquiry is limited to whether any actual or reasonably assumed state of facts supports the legislative judgment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Imitation Infant Cereal Act, making it unlawful to ship in interstate commerce any grain-based powder blended with non-grain fillers so that it resembles infant cereal, after hearings suggesting the product is nutritionally inferior when used as a substitute and is easily passed off as genuine. Blue Mesa Foods in Albuquerque ships the product to retailers in Phoenix and argues Congress may regulate labeling but cannot ban shipment altogether because health and fraud are matters for the states.

How should a court most likely rule on Blue Mesa Foods's facial constitutional challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that the commerce power includes the power to prohibit interstate shipment of articles Congress may reasonably conceive to be injurious to public health, morals, or welfare. That a law has effects similar to state police regulation does not make it a forbidden invasion of state power. For ordinary commercial regulation, the court does not require Congress to prove actual danger beyond dispute on a facial challenge.