304 U.S. 144, 153 n.4 (1938)
In March 1923, Congress enacted the Filled Milk Act.1 The statute prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat so as to resemble milk or cream.2
Carolene Products Company was indicted for the shipment in interstate commerce of packages of Milnut.3 Milnut is a compound of condensed skimmed milk and coconut oil made in imitation or semblance of condensed milk or cream.4 The United States indicted Carolene Products in the district court for the southern district of Illinois for violation of the Act by the shipment in interstate commerce of packages of Milnut.5
The indictment stated in the words of the statute that Milnut is an adulterated article of food injurious to the public health.6 It further stated that Milnut is not a prepared food product of the type excepted from the prohibition of the Act.7 The trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment on the authority of an earlier case in the same court.8
The case was brought to the Supreme Court on appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907.9 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has meanwhile upheld the Filled Milk Act as an appropriate exercise of the commerce power in a separate case.10
Prior to passage of the Act, Congress held committee hearings.11 Eminent scientists and health experts testified during those hearings.12 An extensive investigation was made of the commerce in milk compounds in which vegetable oils have been substituted for natural milk fat.13 The investigation also examined the effect upon the public health of the use of such compounds as a food substitute for milk.14 The conclusions drawn from evidence presented at the hearings were embodied in reports of the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.15
Carolene Products assailed the statute as beyond the power of Congress over interstate commerce.16 It also complained that the statute denies equal protection of the laws and deprives it of its property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment.17 The challenge focused particularly on the statute's purportedly binding and conclusive legislative declaration that the product is an adulterated article of food injurious to the public health.18
Whether the Filled Milk Act transcends the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce?19
The power to regulate commerce extends to the prohibition of shipments in interstate commerce of articles whose use Congress may reasonably conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals or welfare.20
No. The Filled Milk Act prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat so as to resemble milk or cream.21 Congress exercised this power after committee hearings and reports concluding that the use of filled milk as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and facilitates fraud on the public.22
The Filled Milk Act is a permissible exercise of the commerce power.23
Related opinions on this issue
Whether the Filled Milk Act infringes the Fifth Amendment by depriving Carolene Products of property without due process of law?26
Regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless, in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed, it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators.27
No. The prohibition of shipment of the product in interstate commerce does not infringe the Fifth Amendment because the legislative judgment that the product is injurious to health has a rational basis supported by committee hearings and expert testimony.28 There is nothing in the Constitution which compels a legislature to ignore such evidence.29
The Filled Milk Act does not infringe the Fifth Amendment.30
Whether the Filled Milk Act's legislative declaration that filled milk is an adulterated article of food injurious to the public health is binding and conclusive upon the courts?31
The statutory characterization of filled milk as injurious to health and as a fraud upon the public is a declaration of the legislative findings.32 This declaration is deemed to support and justify the action taken as a constitutional exertion of the legislative power, aiding informed judicial review.33
No. The declaration is not the purpose or construction to preclude the disproof in judicial proceedings of facts showing the statute lacks a rational basis.34 The existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed. The constitutionality may be assailed by proof of facts tending to show the statute is without support in reason.35
The legislative declaration is not binding and conclusive upon the courts.36
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Butler concurs in the result.37 Prima facie the facts alleged in the indictment are sufficient to constitute a violation of the statute.38 But they are not sufficient conclusively to establish guilt of the accused.39
At the trial it may introduce evidence to show that the declaration of the Act that the described product is injurious to public health is without any substantial foundation.40 The same is true for the declaration that the sale of it is a fraud upon the public.41 The provisions on which the indictment rests should if possible be construed to avoid the serious question of constitutionality.42 If construed to exclude from interstate commerce wholesome food products that demonstrably are neither injurious to health nor calculated to deceive, they are repugnant to the Fifth Amendment.43
The allegation of the indictment that Milnut is an adulterated article of food injurious to the public health tenders an issue of fact to be determined upon evidence.44