Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (April 2009) |
| Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission | ||||||
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 22, 1977 Decided June 20, 1977 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full case name | Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission | |||||
| Citations | 432 U.S. 333 (more) | |||||
| Prior history | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina | |||||
| Subsequent history | 408 F. Supp. 857, affirmed. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| North Carolina violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state apple growers. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Burger, joined by unanimous court | |||||
| Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | ||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. art. I § 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause) | ||||||
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law requiring all importers of apples to label their containers with U.S. Dept. of Agriculture grade, and prohibiting the display of state grades. Washington State used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law needlessly discriminated against Washington State apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.
Facts:
Challenge to North Carolina 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 North Carolina gave the crates a damaged appearance.
Issue:
Is the North Carolina state law protectionist/discriminatory in nature?
Holding:
Yes. The state law is invalid.
North Carolina's Argument:
North Carolina acknowledged the burden placed on Washington State, but said the 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 discriminated against Washington in a number of ways. First, it raised the cost of Washington State doing business in North Carolina while not doing the same for North Carolina apple production. North Carolina was not forced to alter their marketing practices as Washington State was. Second, it stripped Washington State of the competitive and economic advantages it had established through its nationally-accepted higher standards and expensive inspection system. Third, it lowered the superior Washington State grade to the lower USDA standard, leveling the playing field with North Carolina apples and giving North Carolina a decided advantage. North Carolina failed to show the unavailability of other nondiscriminatory alternatives. North Carolina claimed the law eliminated confusion and fraud, but permitted the marketing of crates of apples with no grade at all.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- ^ 432 U.S. 333 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- Summary of case from OYEZ
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
