|
|
|
|
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case dealt with a federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. The defendant argued that the law was unconstitutional on both Commerce Clause and due process grounds.
The previous term, the Court, under pressure from the Roosevelt administration's court-packing plan, had dramatically changed its Commerce Clause jurisprudence to enlarge substantially those activities considered to be in or to affect interstate commerce; however, it has been argued that the "switch in time that saved nine" followed the natural progression of Justice Roberts' earlier opinions (it was his swing vote in the New Deal 5-4 decisions that authorized the more intensive regulation of the economy).
Discussion
Ask a question about 'United States v. Carolene Products Co.' Start a new discussion about 'United States v. Carolene Products Co.' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case dealt with a federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. The defendant argued that the law was unconstitutional on both Commerce Clause and due process grounds.
The previous term, the Court, under pressure from the Roosevelt administration's court-packing plan, had dramatically changed its Commerce Clause jurisprudence to enlarge substantially those activities considered to be in or to affect interstate commerce; however, it has been argued that the "switch in time that saved nine" followed the natural progression of Justice Roberts' earlier opinions (it was his swing vote in the New Deal 5-4 decisions that authorized the more intensive regulation of the economy). It had also altered its settled jurisprudence in the area of substantive due process, that is, the constitutional law dealing with rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. These changes meant that many New Deal programs that the Court would previously have invalidated would henceforth be found constitutional.
The defendant company was charged with breaking the law described above, and at trial it had filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois had granted the defendant's motion, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed the District Court's ruling.
Justice Harlan Stone, writing for the Court, found that the law, being "presumptively constitutional" was essentially a legislative judgment, and hence was not for the courts to overrule. Applying rational-basis review, the Court held that the law was supported by substantial public-health evidence, and was not arbitrary or irrational.
Footnote Four
Carolene Products is best known for its "Footnote Four", which is considered to be "the most famous footnote in constitutional law." The Court applied minimal scrutiny (rational basis review) to the economic regulation in this case, but proposed a new level of review for certain other types of cases.
Justice Stone suggested there were reasons to apply a more exacting standard of judicial review in other types of cases. Legislation aimed at discrete and insular minorities, who lack the normal protections of the political process, should be an exception to the presumption of constitutionality, and a heightened standard of judicial review should be applied. This idea has greatly influenced equal protection jurisprudence, and judicial review.
Text of Footnote Four
Footnote Four introduced the idea of levels of judicial scrutiny. In keeping with the New Deal Revolution, Footnote Four established the rational basis test for economic legislation, an extremely low standard of judicial review. The "rational basis test" mandates that legislation (whether enacted by Congress or state legislatures) which deals with economic regulation must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Therefore, Footnote Four outlines a higher level of judicial scrutiny for legislation that met certain conditions:
- On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge).
- Attempts to distort or rig the political process.
- Discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process.
This higher level of scrutiny, now called "strict scrutiny", was first applied in Justice Black's opinion in Korematsu v. U.S. (1944).
This "most famous footnote" was in fact written not by Justice Stone, but by his law clerk, Louis Lusky.
Criticism
Geoffrey P. Miller argues that “the statute upheld in the case was an utterly unprincipled example of special interest legislation. The purported public interest justifications so credulously reported by Justice Stone were patently bogus. … The consequence of the decision was to expropriate the property of a lawful and beneficial industry; to deprive working and poor people of a healthful, nutritious, and low-cost food; and to impair the health of the nation's children by encouraging the use as baby food of a sweetened condensed milk product that was 42 percent sugar.”
See also
Further reading
|
| |
|
|
