United States v. Carolene Products Co. – Filled milk

t Stone1938. A presumption of constitutionality would be applied in the case of an economic regulation subjected to due process attack.

t Holding. SCt sustained against a due process attack a federal prohibition on the interstate shipment of “filled” milk(e.g. skimmed milk mixed with non-milk fats).

t Rationale. SCt noted that Congress had acted upon findings of fact (e.g. committee reports) showing a public health danger from the filled milk. But even in the absence of explicit legislative findings, SCt held, “the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed, for regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators.” This test might be characterized as a “minimum rationality” standard, coupled with a presumption of constitutionality.

t Significance. This case provides maximum deference to the legislature, presuming that facts support the legislation. The case thus stands for a rule of judicial abdication.

t Footnote 4. However, the famous footnote 4 [certainly the most important footnote in all Constitutional Law], sets forth three exceptions, each in a separate paragraph. Each became the basis of an important line of subsequent case law.

n First paragraph. Described the incorporation of the bill of rights.

n Second paragraph. Refused to presume the constitutionality of “legislation which restricts those political processes [such as voting, expression, and political association] which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation,” anticipates

i. the representation-reinforcing cases (e.g. Baker v. Carr); and

ii. the representation-reinforcing approach proposed by Ely. The difficulty with Ely’s approach is that it involves just the kind of value judgments that he finds so indeterminate in the other approaches, as Brest’s critiqueobserves.

n Third paragraph. Worried about legislation that “reflects “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities.” This anticipates the equal protection cases below.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 722