- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
ArgueDate=February 22
ArgueYear=1977
DecideDate=June 20
DecideYear=1977
FullName=Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
USVol=432
USPage=333
Citation=
Prior=Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Subsequent=408 F. Supp. 857, affirmed.
Holding=North Carolina violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state apple growers.
SCOTUS=1975-1981
Majority=Burger
JoinMajority=unanimous court
NotParticipating=Rehnquist
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. I § 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause)"Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission", 432 U.S. 333 (
1977 )ref|citation, was a case in which theSupreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down aNorth Carolina law requiring all importers of apples to label their containers withU.S. Dept. of Agriculture grade, and prohibiting the display of state grades.Washington used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law needlessly discriminated against Washington apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.Facts:
Challenge to NC statute requiring crates of apples only be marked with the USDA grade/standard. Washington State applied higher standards than the USDA and claimed the law discriminated against the display of a superior product grade. Getting rid of the Washington state grade on crates to be shipped to NC gave the crates a damaged appearance.
Issue:
Is the NC state law protectionist/discriminatory in nature?
Holding:
Yes. The state law is invalid.
North Carolina's Argument:
NC acknowledged the burden place on Washington, but said that burden was far outweighed by the local benefits and well within their police powers. The multiple grades, that were often similar in name, caused confusion and could lead to fraud within their states.
Reasoning:
The statute discriminates against Washington in a number of ways. First, it raises the cost of Washington doing in business in NC, while not doing the same for NC apple production. NC was not forced to alter their marketing practices as WA was. Second, it strips WA of the competitive and economic advantages it has established thru its nationally accepted higher standards and expensive inspection system. Third, it lowers the superior WA grade to the lower USDA standard, leveling the playing field with NC apples and giving NC a decided advantage. NC has failed to show the unavailability of other nondiscriminatory alternatives. NC claims the law eliminates confusion and fraud, but permits the marketing of crates of apples with no grade at all.
ee also
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 432 External links
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=432&page=333 432 U.S. 333] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
* [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/172/ Summary of case from OYEZ]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.