Natural Milk Producers Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco
Headline: San Francisco raw-milk rule vacated and sent back after medical board refused certification, leaving pasteurization requirement intact and blocking sale of uncertified raw milk while state court reviews the case.
Holding: The Court vacated the lower judgment and remanded the case to the state supreme court because the local medical commission could not certify raw milk, rendering the federal constitutional questions moot.
- Effectively bars sale of non-certified raw milk in San Francisco.
- Leaves the city’s pasteurization requirement in place during state court review.
- Prevents a federal constitutional ruling now because certification is unavailable.
Summary
Background
A group challenging San Francisco’s milk law argued that the city’s rule was unfair because it forced non-pasteurized raw milk sellers to get certification from a private medical society board instead of a public official, while at the same time banning other kinds of raw milk sales that the sellers said were essentially the same as the certified product. The dispute reached the courts after lower rulings and review by the state’s highest court.
Reasoning
After the trial, the Milk Commission of the San Francisco Medical Society announced it could not certify non-pasteurized milk as free from harmful bacteria, effective January 15, 1939. That development meant there was no longer a way for sellers to meet the ordinance’s certification option. Because the challengers did not attack the rule that requires pasteurization, the federal constitutional questions the challengers raised became moot. The Supreme Court canceled the lower judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back to the Supreme Court of California (remanded) so the state court can decide how to proceed given this new fact.
Real world impact
For now, the practical effect is that uncertified raw milk cannot be sold in San Francisco because the private commission will not certify it, and the city’s pasteurization rule remains effective. This decision does not settle the underlying constitutional claim on the merits; it only ends federal review for now and asks the state court to make any further rulings in light of the commission’s action.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?