United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)
Author: Stone (majority) Outcome: Government wins ($d = 0$: Filled Milk Act upheld) Concurrences: Butler Dissents: McReynolds
1. Holding ($H_t$)
"The prohibition of shipment in interstate commerce of appellee's product, as described in the indictment, is a constitutional exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce." (p. 151)
As constraint on admissible $(w, c)$: The holding affirms that Congress can regulate interstate commerce by prohibiting the shipment of products deemed injurious to public health, even if such regulation resembles state police power. This implies that decision rules must accept legislative findings of harm as a valid basis for federal regulation, provided there is a rational basis for such findings.
What the holding does NOT constrain:
- The specific evidentiary standard required to challenge legislative findings
- Whether similar regulations on other products (e.g., oleomargarine) would be constitutional
- The applicability of this rationale to non-commercial contexts or purely intrastate activities
- The extent to which legislative findings can preclude judicial review of factual claims
2. Fact vector $z_t$
2a. Raw salient facts
- Filled Milk Act: Prohibits interstate shipment of filled milk, defined as milk compounded with non-milk fats to resemble milk (p. 145). Favors: government.
- Legislative findings: Congress declared filled milk "an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health" and a "fraud upon the public" (p. 145). Favors: government.
- Judicial notice of harm: The Court notes "evidence has steadily accumulated of the danger to the public health from the general consumption of foods which have been stripped of elements essential to the maintenance of health" (p. 148). Favors: government.
- Rational basis for regulation: The Court presumes the existence of facts supporting legislative judgment unless clearly irrational (p. 152). Favors: government.
- Comparison to oleomargarine: The Act does not extend to oleomargarine, which also substitutes vegetable fats for animal fats (p. 151). Favors: plaintiff (argues unequal treatment).
2b. Dimension mapping
| Dimension | Value | Raw fact(s) mapped | Textual basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Facial classification | Low | Filled Milk Act applies to specific product, not group | "Prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat" (p. 145) |
| D2 Protected trait | N/A | — | No group-based classification |
| D3 Intent evidence | Low | Legislative findings presumed valid | "Statutory characterization of filled milk as injurious to health and as a fraud upon the public" (p. 152) |
| D4 Interest strength | Strong | Public health and fraud prevention | "Injurious to the public health, and its sale constitutes a fraud upon the public" (p. 145) |
| D5 Means-ends fit | Moderate | Rational basis review applied | "Regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless... it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis" (p. 152) |
| D6 Stigma / caste risk | Low | No group-based stigma | — |
| D7 Institutional setting | Economic regulation | Commerce clause context | "Constitutional exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce" (p. 151) |
| D8 Precedent density / conflict | Low | Few direct precedents on filled milk | — |
Unmapped facts:
- The comparison to oleomargarine highlights a potential equal protection issue, though the Fifth Amendment lacks an explicit equal protection clause. This might suggest a dimension for regulatory consistency.
Notable: The Court emphasizes the presumption of constitutionality for economic regulations, suggesting a high threshold for invalidating such laws absent clear irrationality.
3. Treatment of prior holdings ($\mathcal{F}_t$ update)
Hebe Co. v. Shaw (1919)
- Status: Relied on. The Court cites Hebe Co. to support the idea that prohibiting certain food products is within legislative power (p. 148).
- Characterization: The Court viewed Hebe Co. as establishing that legislative judgment on public health matters is presumptively valid.
- Model interpretation: Reinforces the constraint that legislative findings on public health can justify commerce regulation, expanding $\mathcal{F}_t$ to include similar regulatory actions.
Powell v. Pennsylvania (1888); Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902)
- Status: Relied on. These cases upheld state regulations on food products (p. 150).
- Characterization: The Court uses these cases to argue that similar federal regulations are permissible under the commerce power.
- Model interpretation: Supports the view that federal regulation of commerce can mirror state police powers, broadening the scope of permissible federal actions.
4. Overruling (constraint removal at cost $C$)
No overruling in this case. The Court does not explicitly overrule any prior decisions, nor does it suggest removing any existing constraints. The decision reinforces existing doctrines regarding the presumption of constitutionality for economic regulations.
5. Breadth
Narrow reading (what the Court explicitly holds):
- The Filled Milk Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
- The Act's prohibition is limited to filled milk products that resemble milk or cream.
Broad reading (what the reasoning supports):
- Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce by prohibiting products deemed harmful to public health, even if such regulation resembles state police power.
- Legislative findings of harm are given substantial deference, limiting judicial review.
Breadth ambiguity:
- The decision leaves open the extent to which similar reasoning could apply to other food products or non-commercial regulations. The Court's emphasis on deference to legislative findings could be interpreted broadly to support a wide range of regulatory actions.
6. Concurrences / dissents (alternative admissible theories)
Justice Butler (concurring)
- Alternative constraint structure: Butler concurs in the result but emphasizes that the facts alleged in the indictment are not sufficient to conclusively establish guilt. He suggests that evidence could be introduced at trial to challenge the legislative findings (p. 152).
- Key disagreement: Butler focuses on the evidentiary standard and the potential for judicial review of legislative findings, indicating a preference for more rigorous scrutiny of factual claims.
Justice McReynolds (dissenting)
- Alternative constraint structure: McReynolds believes the judgment should be affirmed, suggesting he would impose a constraint that limits Congress's ability to regulate products without clear evidence of harm (p. 152).
- Key disagreement: McReynolds likely disagrees with the majority's deference to legislative findings and the breadth of Congress's commerce power, favoring a more restrictive interpretation.
7. Reasoning revealing implicit weights on dimensions
Presumption of constitutionality (D5 weight is moderate):
"Regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless... it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis" (p. 152).
The Court emphasizes deference to legislative judgment, suggesting a moderate weight on means-ends fit, with a presumption of rationality.
Public health and fraud prevention (D4 weight is strong):
"The use of filled milk as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and facilitates fraud on the public" (p. 149).
The Court places strong weight on the governmental interest in protecting public health and preventing fraud, justifying the regulation.
Judicial review of legislative findings (D3 weight is low):
"The statutory characterization of filled milk as injurious to health and as a fraud upon the public... [aids] informed judicial review" (p. 152).
The Court indicates a low weight on intent evidence, deferring to legislative findings unless clearly irrational.
Economic regulation context (D7 weight is high):
"Constitutional exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce" (p. 151).
The Court affirms the high weight on the institutional setting of economic regulation, supporting broad congressional authority under the commerce clause.