1. Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, (1951)

2. Fact: Madison, Wis., has a local ordinance which prohibits the sale within Madison of any milk which has not been pastuerized within a 5 mile radius of the city of Madison. The three pastuerizing plants within that radius are subject to rigourous local safety laws. Dean Milk operates out of Chicago, and its facility meets Federal safety standards.

3. Procedural Posture: Dean Milk brought this action to strike down the Madison law after it was denied a license to sell milk there. The state court rejected the commerce clause attack.

4. Issue: Whether the discrimination inherent in the Madison ordinance can be justified in view of the character of the local interests and the available methods of protecting them.

5. Holding: No.

6. ∏ Argument: The regulation of milk in this manner is a substantial burden upon interstate commerce because it plainly discriminates against interstate commerce.

7. ∆ Argument: The ordinance is valid because it is a good-faith attempt to police health of the milk supply. It is valid regardless of its affect on interstate commerce, because the states have the power to enact local police laws that are not in conflict with existing federal legislation.

8. Majority Reasoning: The statute clearly is a barrier to interstate commerce. It has a discriminatory effect, even if it is not purposefully discriminatory. If it were held valid simply because it were related to health, then the Commerce Clause would be powerless because a state could enact a burdensome and protective law on the pretext of health. Since there are alternative methods for assuring the same degree of health protection, the local law’s interest in health does not outweigh the national interests in non-discriminatory interstate commerce practices. It would be just as effective for the local ordinance to require higher standards without requiring local processing. A model federal provision existed that would adequately safeguard the public health.