Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota

Background

A business, the Fairmont Creamery Company, was convicted under a Minnesota law, and that conviction was affirmed by Minnesota’s lower courts. The Creamery won in the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the state-court judgment on grounds the statute was unconstitutional and entered a judgment reversing with costs in favor of the Creamery. After the mandate issued, the State of Minnesota moved to retax (reduce or remove) those costs.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether it could tax costs against a state in this kind of case. Minnesota argued that, as a sovereign, it should not be charged costs in criminal matters unless a state statute allows it. The Court examined its long-standing practice and Rule 29 §3, and it found historical practice and a federal statute (Judicial Code §254) that permit the Supreme Court to award costs—especially printing costs—against any losing party other than the United States. The Court distinguished earlier decisions that applied only to particular transfers or state procedures.

Real world impact

The Court denied Minnesota’s motion to retax costs. The practical result is that a state that loses a case in the Supreme Court can be required to pay the usual costs of the case, including the cost of printing the record. This rule applies in both civil and criminal appeals brought here and follows the Court’s long-established practice and the cited federal statute.