Term: 2002
Docket: 01-950
Hillside Dairy Inc., A&a Dairy, L&s Dairy, And Milky Way Farms v. William J. Lyons, Jr., Secretary, California Department Of Food And Agriculture, Et Al.
- Pro
01-950 HILLSIDE DAIRY v. LYONS Ruling below: CA 9, 259 F.3d 1148. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: I. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear "blanket" exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause for California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which would be otherwise limited by this Court's holding in Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 ( 1935), and its progeny? II. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an "unmistakably clear" Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce Clause? 01-1018 PONDEROSA DAIRY v. LYONS Ruling below: CA 9, 259 F.3d 1148. QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. May a court fulfill its duty under the "clear statement" standard applicable to federal laws that would alter the Constitutional balance between state and federal governments by (a) drawing inferences of Congressional intent from statements of industry spokesmen in legislative subcommittee hearings predating the introduction of the proposed law in dispute, and (b) without examining the factual fit between the specific state regulatory scheme and specific language employed by Congress? 2 Is substantive judicial review of discriminatory effect under the Privileges and Immunities Clause foreclosed as a matter of law where state discrimination is facially based on the out-of-state location of a farm or business, but statute does not expressly refer to out-of-state "residency" or "citizenship"? CERT. GRANTED: 1/10/03 Consolidated for one hour oral argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court case Hillside Dairy Inc., A&A Dairy, L&S Dairy, and Milky Way Farms v. William J. Lyons Jr., Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture et al., 2002 revolved around the constitutionality of pricing regulations for milk products in California under the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (FAIRA) of 1996. The plaintiffs were out-of-state dairy producers who claimed that these regulations violated both the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and Supremacy Clause as they were preempted by FAIRA's non-discrimination provision regarding milk pricing standards across states. The Ninth Circuit court had upheld most parts of California’s regulatory scheme but struck down a part related to pooling provisions on grounds it was discriminatory towards out-of-state processors. However, upon review by the Supreme Court in 2003, it vacated this judgement due to lack of clarity over whether federal law preempts state regulation in this area or not; thus remanding back to lower courts for further proceedings with instructions to consider if any portion violates either clause.
In the dissenting opinion for Hillside Dairy Inc., et al. v. Lyons, Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold California's milk pricing and pooling regulations against a Commerce Clause challenge. He argued that these state laws discriminated against out-of-state dairy producers and processors by forcing them to subsidize California dairy farmers through pooled payments without receiving any benefits in return, which he believed was a clear violation of the Commerce Clause’s prohibition on economic protectionism. Furthermore, he contended that this case should not have been remanded back to lower courts because there were no factual disputes left unresolved; rather it was purely an issue of law that could be decided by Supreme Court itself.
