A Wisconsin statute forbids the sale of milk within the state unless the pasteurization plant has been inspected. The statute provides for inspection of out-of-state plants by Wisconsin inspectors at the expense of the plant owner. The state law also permits municipalities to set up their own inspection systems for milk. The city of Madison, Wisconsin, pursuant to that statute, forbids the sale of milk within the city limits unless the plant has been inspected by city inspectors. Inspectors from Madison desire to inspect the plant of the Good Milk Company, an out-of-state milk producer, at company expense, shortly after the company has paid for an inspection by the state of Wisconsin. What is the best argument for the Good Milk Company that the statute is unconstitutional to the extent that it requires the company to pay for a second inspection?
A. The costs of the inspection are substantial.
B. The inspection standards were not approved by the federal government.
C. The Madison inspectors are politically appointed and have no expertise in inspecting plants.
D. The city of Madison accepts the results of state inspections for plants located in Wisconsin, but outside of the Madison city limits.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer D is correct. If proven, this fact would establish that the city is discriminating against interstate commerce because only out-of-state suppliers are required to undergo a second inspection. This would render the application of the inspection statute unconstitutional. See Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison.
Answer A is incorrect. If the inspection were necessary to protect the health of the residents of Madison, then, under the state’s police powers, the statute would be constitutional, regardless of the cost of the inspection.
Answer B is incorrect. The state may, under its police power, establish its own safety standards without the approval of the federal government. However, there is a constitutional limitation on this authority when the regulation discriminates against out-of-state businesses and is unduly burdensome on interstate commerce.
Answer C is incorrect. The incompetence of the inspectors is not the best basis to attack the constitutionality of the inspection requirement. The statute can be attacked on a constitutional basis if it discriminates against out-of-state business and is unduly burdensome on interstate commerce, even if the inspectors are competent.
D, by process of elimination. A is incorrect because although the city’s costs placing an undue burden on interstate commerce is a strong argument, the exception of “Congressional approval of discrimination” applies here. The federal government authorized the city to set up a separate city inspection system, and thus this argument would not prevail. B is incorrect because the standards were improved by the federal government, as the facts indicate. C is incorrect because it is not a constitutional argument–the point that “inspectors are politically appointed” could possibly point to the issue being a “political question,” but if it were a political question, the court would not hear it at all.
An argument of a violation of the Privileges & Immunities Clause of Article IV would be the strongest one here (although I’m not sure that the facts indicate that in-state plants would not be inspected by city inspectors).
answer d
D.
Answer D
D.
I apologize Kimberly for using your post to post my answer. But some how I can’t post my answer independently.
My answer is D.