Minerva Dairy, Inc. v. Harsdorf
905 F.3d 1047
7th Cir.2018Background
- Minerva Dairy (Ohio) makes artisanal, small-batch butter and sold ungraded butter in Wisconsin; after an anonymous complaint Wisconsin warned Minerva in Feb. 2017 and Minerva stopped retail sales in-state.
- Wisconsin law requires all butter sold at retail in-state to be graded and labeled with the grade; grading may be done by a Wisconsin-licensed grader or the USDA; the statute applies to in-state and out-of-state butter.
- Wisconsin grades butter via sensory and objective criteria (flavor, body, color, salt) and issues an appeal process; grader license requires an application, $75 fee, an exam (taken in Wisconsin), and biennial renewal.
- Minerva sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of substantive due process, equal protection, and the dormant Commerce Clause, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Wisconsin; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying rational-basis review and dormant Commerce Clause principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive Due Process — economic regulation | Law irrationally interferes with right to earn a living because grading is subjective, consumers don’t understand grades, and it harms artisanal brand value | Grading rationally furthers legitimate state interests in consumer information and promoting commerce; rational-basis review is highly deferential | Upheld: statute is rationally related to consumer protection and commerce interests under rational-basis review |
| Equal Protection — disparate treatment of graded vs. ungraded butter and other commodities | Treating butter differently is underinclusive and irrational; law harms artisanal producers | State may regulate economics incrementally; butter is materially different (less idiosyncratic tastes) and historical reasons support distinction | Upheld: no equal protection violation under rational-basis review |
| Dormant Commerce Clause — facial or practical discrimination against out-of-state commerce | Law and licensing process discriminate against out-of-state producers/graders (travel to exam; alleged pre-2017 policy blocking out-of-state grading) | Statute is facially neutral; effects are geographic, not discriminatory against out-of-state actors; no evidence of a pre-suit discriminatory policy | Upheld: no dormant Commerce Clause violation; statute does not discriminate against interstate commerce |
| As-applied claim re: pre-2017 enforcement policy | Department had an unwritten policy prohibiting Wisconsin-licensed graders from grading out-of-state, which would be discriminatory | Department officials denied a written policy; testimony did not establish a pre-2017 discriminatory practice | Denied: plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence of a pre-2017 discriminatory policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 508 U.S. 307 (1983) (legislative choices need not be supported by courtroom fact-finding under rational-basis review)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (dormant Commerce Clause balancing test for even-handed regulations)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational-basis invalidation where law rests on irrational prejudice)
- Monarch Beverage Co. v. Cook, 861 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2017) (deference under rational-basis review for economic regulation)
- Park Pet Shop, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 872 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017) (geographic burdens do not automatically equal discrimination under dormant Commerce Clause)
- Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (government has substantial interest in disclosure laws that inform consumers)
- Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 (1915) (state regulation of agricultural goods rationally related to protecting reputation in markets)