HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Nebbia v. New York'', 291 U.S. 502 (1934), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that
New York State New York, officially the State of New York, is a state in the Northeastern United States. It is often called New York State to distinguish it from its largest city, New York City. With a total area of , New York is the 27th-largest U.S. stat ...
could regulate the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.


History

New York State dairy farmers were disproportionately harmed by the decline in farm prices after
World War I World War I (28 July 1914 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history. Belligerents included much of Europe, the Russian Empire, the United States, and the Ottoman Empire, with fightin ...
, and the Great Depression further worsened the problems they faced. To tackle the problem, the New York legislature created a joint legislative committee, headed by State Senator Perley A. Pitcher.Henry S. Manley, ''Nebbia Plus Fifteen'', 13 Albany Law Review 11 (1949), at 12. Following the hearings, the state of New York established a Milk Control Board in 1933 that was empowered to set
maximum In mathematical analysis, the maxima and minima (the respective plurals of maximum and minimum) of a function, known collectively as extrema (the plural of extremum), are the largest and smallest value of the function, either within a given r ...
and
minimum In mathematical analysis, the maxima and minima (the respective plurals of maximum and minimum) of a function, known collectively as extrema (the plural of extremum), are the largest and smallest value of the function, either within a given r ...
retail prices. The board set the price of a quart of milk at 9¢. The price reflected the market price at some point in the past and the order was designed to prevent price cutting. Nevertheless, the public suspected that the board's intent was to benefit dairy dealers, instead of farmers, because the minimum prices for the two sides were not the same. Tensions ran so high that violent milk strikes took place throughout the state, with two deaths and a great amount of property damage.Manley, ''supra'', at 13. Every public hearing of the Milk Control Board resulted in a "tumultuous, popular assemblage" and its every action was "Statewide news." A search began for a case that would challenge the constitutional basis of the statute. Leo Nebbia, the owner of a grocery store, sold two quarts of milk and a 5¢ loaf of bread for 18¢. He was found guilty of violating the price regulations and was fined $25. He challenged the conviction, arguing the statute and order violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The county court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.


Decision

Justice Owen J. Roberts delivered the majority opinion. He began by examining the legislative intent of the statute in question and briefly discussing on the effects of the Great Depression on milk prices and the significance of milk production to the agriculture of the United States. He then noted that although use of property and making of contracts are typically private matters and so remain free of government interference, "neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute." He added that occasional regulation by the state is requisite for the proper government function, especially if such regulation is used to promote general welfare. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not prohibit governmental regulation for the public welfare. Instead, they only direct the process by which such regulation occurs. As the Court has held before, such due process "demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained." Roberts noted also that the New York milk industry had long been the subject of public interest regulation. He claimed that because a legislative investigation had resulted in the establishment of the Milk Control Board, it was well aware of the insufficiency of regular laws of supply and demand to correct the issues with milk prices so "the order appears not to be unreasonable or arbitrary." Further addressing the due process challenge, Roberts wrote that in absence of other constitutional restrictions, a state may both adopt an economic policy that can reasonably be said to promote public welfare and enforce such policy by appropriate legislation. Courts, however, have no authority to create such policy or to strike it down when it has been properly enacted by the legislature. He added, "With the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the adequacy or practicability of the law enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal." He concluded that the majority found no basis in the Due Process Clause to strike down the challenged provisions of the Agriculture and Markets law.


Dissent

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by Justice
Willis Van Devanter Willis Van Devanter (April 17, 1859 – February 8, 1941) was an American lawyer who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1911 to 1937. He was a staunch conservative and was regarded as a part of the Four ...
, Justice
George Sutherland George Alexander Sutherland (March 25, 1862July 18, 1942) was an English-born American jurist and politician. He served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court between 1922 and 1938. As a member of the Republican Party, he also repre ...
, and Justice
Pierce Butler Pierce or Piers Butler may refer to: *Piers Butler, 8th Earl of Ormond (c. 1467 – 26 August 1539), Anglo-Irish nobleman in the Peerage of Ireland *Piers Butler, 3rd Viscount Galmoye (1652–1740), Anglo-Irish nobleman in the Peerage of Ireland * P ...
. The four became nicknamed the
Four Horsemen The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are figures in the Christian scriptures, first appearing in the Book of Revelation, a piece of apocalypse literature written by John of Patmos. Revelation 6 tells of a book or scroll in God's right hand tha ...
for their rejection of New Deal regulation. McReynolds brought up many examples, such as ''
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann ''New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann'', 285 U.S. 262 (1932), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Facts The New State Ice Company, which was properly licensed in by the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, brought suit against Lie ...
'', where the court ruled that states may not legislate over private businesses. He further questioned the rational basis of fixing milk at a higher price than the market value. He reasoned that the extra expense would drive down sales, thus doing little to help the dairy farmer, and furthermore, deprive the poorest among milk consumers. He ultimately concluded that although "regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action... fixation of the price at which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition, has not been regarded as within legislative power." He added, "This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation."291 U.S. at 554 (McReynolds, J., dissenting).


References


External links

* *{{caselaw source , case = ''Nebbia v. New York'', {{ussc, 291, 502, 1934, el=no , cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502 , courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/102224/nebbia-v-new-york/ , googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12887238671714034365 , justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/291/502/ , loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep291/usrep291502/usrep291502.pdf , oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/291us502 1934 in United States case law United States substantive due process case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court Constitutional challenges to the New Deal