Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Milnot Company v. Richardson

United States District Court · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEconomic RegulationDeclaratory JudgmentFilled Milk Actdue processrational basischanged facts

Facts

Milnot is a food product made by skimming cream from whole milk, adding soybean oil and vitamins A and D to the remaining fat-free milk, and evaporating part of the water; the record showed it was wholesome, nutritious, and useful as food. The Filled Milk Act prohibits interstate shipment of "filled milk," and Milnot had previously been treated as such, causing plaintiff to limit distribution to intrastate commerce. Since the Supreme Court's earlier Carolene decisions, new imitation milk and dairy products have entered interstate commerce and compete with Milnot. Some of those products are made in part from skim milk and vegetable oil and are similar to Milnot in composition, appearance, and use, yet are permitted to move in interstate commerce.

Issue

Whether Milnot is a "filled milk" within the statute, whether prior litigation barred renewed constitutional review, and, if not barred, whether applying the Filled Milk Act to prohibit interstate shipment of Milnot violates due process because current market conditions make the distinction irrational.

Rule

Economic regulatory legislation satisfies due process if, in light of known facts, it can rationally be assumed to rest on some rational basis within legislative knowledge and experience. But when a statute's validity depends on a particular state of facts, its constitutionality may be challenged by showing that those facts have ceased to exist; and res judicata does not bar such a challenge when later-arising facts furnish a new basis for relief.

🔒

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.

Prairie Harvest Foods, a company based in Peoria, Illinois, makes a shelf-stable product by removing cream from milk, blending the remaining skim milk with sunflower oil, and evaporating part of the water. A federal statute defines "blended milk" as skimmed milk combined with non-milk oil so that the result is in imitation or semblance of milk, and it bars interstate shipment of such products.

If Prairie Harvest seeks a declaratory judgment that its product is outside the statute because it is nutritious and vitamin-fortified, what is the strongest prediction?

Explanation. The majority first held that a product made from skim milk plus non-milk oil and resembling milk fell squarely within the statute's definition, regardless of its wholesomeness or usefulness as food. The proper path was not statutory noncoverage but an as-applied due process challenge. (Derived from Milnot Company v. Richardson (n.d.).)