## Facts

- New York enacted a Milk Control Act setting minimum prices that milk dealers had to pay to New York producers.
- New York conditioned the in-state sale of milk imported from other states on proof that the out-of-state producer was paid at least New York’s minimum price.
- G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., a New York milk dealer, purchased milk and cream in Vermont at prices below New York’s minimum and shipped the products by rail into New York City.
- Seelig sold most milk in the original 40-quart shipping cans and repackaged a smaller portion into bottles for retail sale.
- New York officials refused to license Seelig unless it complied with the Act’s minimum-price condition for out-of-state milk and threatened prosecution for dealing without a license.
- Seelig sued to enjoin enforcement; a three-judge federal district court enjoined enforcement as to sales in original cans but not as to milk rebottled after arrival.

## Issues

1. Whether New York may, consistent with the Commerce Clause, prohibit in-state sale of imported milk unless the importer paid out-of-state producers at least New York’s minimum price.
2. Whether such a restriction can be sustained as an exercise of state police power aimed at protecting public health and ensuring an adequate milk supply.
3. Whether the constitutional analysis differs for milk sold in original interstate containers versus milk repackaged into bottles after importation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held unanimously that New York’s minimum-price condition on imported milk imposed a direct and unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
- The Court rejected the district court’s distinction between original-can sales and rebottled milk; the same constitutional defect applied to both.
- The Court ruled that the restriction could not be justified as a police-power measure tied to health, sanitation, or economic security.
- The judgment was affirmed insofar as it enjoined enforcement against original-container sales and reversed insofar as it denied relief for rebottled milk, resulting in injunctive relief for Seelig as to both categories.

## Legal Principles

- A state may not condition access to its market on an importer’s payment of in-state minimum prices to out-of-state producers; this functions as a protectionist barrier and burdens interstate commerce.
- The Commerce Clause prohibits state measures that project a state’s price-control regime into other states by using import restrictions to regulate out-of-state transactions.
- Police-power objectives relating to health and welfare do not validate a scheme that, in practical operation, discriminates against or restrains interstate commerce to protect local economic interests.
- For this type of market-access condition, constitutional invalidity does not turn on whether the product is sold in the original interstate container or after repackaging within the state.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated New York’s attempt to preserve in-state milk prices by excluding lower-priced out-of-state milk, holding that a state cannot use licensing and import conditions to control out-of-state prices or insulate itself from interstate competition.


Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935)