Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

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
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

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens

Case opinions

Majority by: 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 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.