Hillside Dairy v. Lyons & Ponderosa Dairy v. Lyons, Jr.
Ponderosa and Hillside are dairies located outside California that sell their raw milk to processors located in California. Ponderosa and Hillside brought suit against the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture following the amendment of California's milk pooling plan, which made out-of-state dairies subject to the pooling plan for the first time. The district court granted summary judgment for California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding, among other things, (1) that ยง 144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) insulates California's pooling amendments from Commerce Clause challenges; and (2) that the pooling plan amendments did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear "blanket" exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause for California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which
would be otherwise limited by Baldwin v. G.A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935), and its progeny?
2. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an "unmistakably clear" Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce
Clause?
3. Is substantive judicial review of discriminatory effect under the Privileges and Immunities Clause foreclosed as a matter of law where state discrimination is facially based on the out-of-state
location of a farm or business, but the statute does not expressly refer to out-of-state residency or citizenship?
