United States v. Carolene Products Co.
United States v. Carolene Products Co. Background:
The case of United States v. Carolene Products Co. was formally decided by the United States Supreme Court on April 2th of 1938. The case of United States v. Carolene Products Co. dealt with a federal law that outlawed filled milk (skimmed milk that is compounded with oil or fat other than milk fat) from being shipped in interstate commerce.
The defendant in United States v. Carolene Products Co. argued that the law was unconstitutional as it violated due process and the Commerce Clause to the United States Constitution.
The case of United States v. Carolene Products Co. was an indictment for shipping in interstate commerce packages of compounds of condensed coconut oil and skimmed milke made in imitation or semblance of condensed cream or milk.
The primary question of United States v. Carolene Products Co. was: does the act violate the aforementioned aspects of the United States Constitution.
United States v. Carolene Products Co.: The Facts
The defendant company in United States v. Carolene Products Co. was charged with breaking the previously-described law. At trial, the company filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the law violated the United States Constitution. The case was originally tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In this case, the court granted the defendant’s motion. Subsequently, this ruling was affirmed in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. These rulings were rendered because the law was essentially deemed a legislative judgment and hence was not susceptible to being overruled by the local court system. Moreover, the Court held that the law was supported because of substantial public-health evidence.
United States v. Carolene Products Co.: Ruling
In United States v. Carolene Products Co., the Court upheld a federal prohibition on the interstate shipment of the previously-described milk product. The Supreme Court rendered this decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. because it claimed that interpretation of the law is a decision that should be rendered by the Congress of the united States and not by the local court system.
The ruling of United States v. Carolene Products Co. stated that the law is within the scope of the power to regulate interstate commerce. Moreover, the ruling in United States v. Carolene Products Co. stated that the law is consistent with the due process clause to the United States Constitution.
Related Topics
- Murray v. Pearson
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
- Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Cases in the United States
- BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore
- Smith v. Maryland
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters
- Imbler v. Pachtman
- Sell v. United States
- Warth v. Seldin
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot