Skip to content

Constitutional LawDue process

United States v. Carolene Products Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 25, 1938 · Core case

Full citation

United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.

United States

federal government

Carolene Products Co.

shipper of filled milkappellee

The parties: United States v. Carolene Products Co..

Brief

Facts

In 1923 Congress passed the "Filled Milk Act." It bars shipping in interstate commerce skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so that the product resembles milk or cream. The Act itself declares that filled milk is an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health, and that its sale is a fraud on the public. Carolene Products shipped packages of "Milnut" in interstate commerce. Milnut was a compound of condensed skimmed milk and coconut oil, made in imitation of condensed milk or cream. The government indicted the company under the Act. The indictment said, in the statute's words, that Milnut is an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health. Before passing the Act, Congress held committee hearings at which scientists and health experts testified. The committees reported that filled milk looks and tastes like milk and is sold in similar packages. They also reported that it lacks the vitamins found in butter fat. They concluded that using it as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and helps fraud on the public.

Issues

  1. Does a federal ban on shipping filled milk in interstate commerce go beyond Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce?
  2. Does the ban deprive the shipper of property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment, or deny it equal protection, including because it does not reach other butter substitutes?
  3. Does the Act's declaration that filled milk is injurious to health and a fraud on the public conclusively bind the shipper and shut off a challenge in court?

Holding

The ban on shipping Carolene Products' Milnut in interstate commerce, as described in the indictment, is a constitutional exercise of the commerce power and does not infringe the Fifth Amendment. The Court read the Act's declaration of harm as legislative findings, not as a bar to judicial proof. Because the Act is not unconstitutional on its face, the trial court should have overruled the demurrer.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Student, Pro and Firm include the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/united-states-v-carolene-products-co