Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison

1951-01-15

Headline: City milk rule struck down as discriminatory: Court invalidates Madison’s five-mile pasteurization limit, allowing out-of-state dairies greater access while curbing local protection of in-city processors.

Holding: The Court held that Madison’s five-mile pasteurization rule unlawfully discriminates against interstate commerce and must be struck down, and it vacated and remanded the related twenty-five-mile inspection provision for further review.

Real World Impact:

Blocks cities from banning out-of-state milk via local pasteurization rules.
Makes it easier for inspected out-of-state dairies to sell in Madison.
Requires cities to use nondiscriminatory inspection methods or justify burdens.

Topics: trade between states, milk safety and inspection, local health rules, limits on city protectionism

Summary

Background

A dairy company that buys and processes milk in Illinois challenged two Madison city rules that limited milk sales. One rule barred sale of milk labeled pasteurized unless it was processed and bottled within five miles of Madison’s central square. The other said Madison need not inspect farms more than twenty-five miles away before issuing permits. The company’s plants were 65 and 85 miles from Madison and its product was inspected and labeled “Grade A” in Chicago.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the five-mile rule put an unlawful burden on trade between states. It accepted that cities may protect public health, but found Madison’s rule in practical effect excluded wholesome out-of-state milk and protected local processors. The Court noted reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives — charging importers for inspection or using uniform ratings like the Public Health Service model — and concluded the five-mile provision discriminated against interstate commerce and must be set aside.

Real world impact

The decision prevents a city from blocking out-of-state milk by geographic pasteurization limits when other nondiscriminatory inspection methods are available. The Court reversed the state court’s approval of the five-mile restriction and vacated and remanded the twenty-five-mile inspection issue for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The ruling makes it easier for inspected out-of-state dairy suppliers to sell in Madison and limits local protectionist measures.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing the ordinance was a genuine health measure, that the proposed alternatives might be less protective, and that the record did not prove substitutes would ensure equivalent safety.