Docket 640
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
DecidedApr 25, 1938
6-1decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court upholds federal ban on shipping "filled milk" products across state lines
What it does
The ruling upholds the Filled Milk Act, which bans shipping in interstate commerce a product made of skimmed milk combined with vegetable oil that looks like real milk or cream. It establishes that courts should presume economic regulations are constitutional if there is any reasonable basis Congress could have relied on, rather than second-guessing the legislature's factual judgments. It also sets out, in a footnote, the idea that laws restricting political processes or targeting minority groups might deserve stricter judicial review than ordinary economic laws.
Who benefits
Consumers of dairy products, particularly children, who the government argued were at risk of malnutrition from mislabeled or confusing dairy substitutes; also traditional dairy producers whose products were protected from confusingly similar substitutes.
Who is affected
Manufacturers and sellers of filled milk products, such as the Carolene Products Company, who are now barred from shipping their compounded milk-and-oil products across state lines.
Practical impact
Companies producing milk substitutes made with vegetable oil could no longer ship them across state lines, reshaping that segment of the food industry. More broadly, the ruling's footnote became one of the most cited passages in constitutional law, later serving as the foundation for the development of heightened judicial scrutiny for laws affecting fundamental rights, voting, and minority groups, even though at the time it was only a tentative suggestion in a footnote to an otherwise economic regulation case.
Majority reasoning
The Court held that Congress's commerce power is broad enough to let it exclude from interstate commerce any product it reasonably believes harms public health, morals, or welfare, and that this power is limited only by the Fifth Amendment, not by the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. The Court reasoned that because Congress held hearings, gathered scientific testimony, and issued committee reports concluding that filled milk was nutritionally inferior and easily confused with real milk, there was a rational, evidence-backed basis for the ban. The majority applied a presumption of constitutionality to economic regulation, holding that courts should not weigh evidence or override a legislature's factual findings unless no rational basis could exist. The Court also addressed the argument that Congress selectively targeted filled milk but not similar products like oleomargarine, holding that a legislature may address one recognized problem without being required to address every similar problem at once. In a footnote, the majority noted that this deferential presumption might apply less strongly to laws restricting voting, speech, or political organizing, or laws aimed at "discrete and insular minorities," suggesting such laws might warrant closer judicial scrutiny.
Constitutional question
Does Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce allow it to ban shipping a milk-and-vegetable-oil product across state lines, and does that ban violate the Fifth Amendment's due process protections?