## Facts

- North Carolina adopted a statute and implementing regulation requiring that all apples shipped or sold into the state in closed containers be labeled only with the applicable U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grade or a designation that the apples were not graded.
- Washington maintained a mandatory, stringent state apple grading and inspection system that was widely regarded as equal or superior to USDA grades and functioned as a marketing advantage for Washington growers in national markets.
- The North Carolina rule effectively barred display of Washington’s state grades on containers sold in North Carolina.
- To comply, Washington shippers had to remove or cover Washington grade markings (incurring per-container costs) and/or abandon preprinted containers used for multi-state distribution, reducing marketing efficiency.
- North Carolina growers generally did not use a comparable state grading label and thus did not incur similar costs or lose comparable marketing advantages.
- North Carolina justified the law as consumer-protection and uniformity regulation intended to prevent fraud and deception in grading.
- The Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, a state-created entity financed by mandatory industry assessments and charged with protecting Washington’s apple industry, sued in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- A three-judge federal district court held the Commission had standing and enjoined enforcement, concluding the statute unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce; North Carolina appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission had associational standing to sue on behalf of Washington apple growers and dealers.
2. Whether North Carolina’s requirement limiting apple container labels to USDA grades (or no grade) violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction and declaratory judgment; Chief Justice Burger wrote for a unanimous Court (Justice Rehnquist did not participate).
- The Commission had associational standing because: (1) affected growers would have standing based on concrete economic injury; (2) the interests asserted were germane to the Commission’s purpose; and (3) the claims and requested relief did not require individual member participation.
- The North Carolina statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause because, though facially neutral, its practical effect was discriminatory:
  - It imposed added costs on Washington shippers while leaving local growers largely unaffected.
  - It stripped Washington producers of competitive advantages derived from their stricter grading system, creating a “leveling” effect benefiting local interests.
- The asserted interests in uniformity and consumer protection did not justify the burden because reasonable, less discriminatory alternatives were available (e.g., permitting state grades if USDA grades also appeared).

## Legal Principles

- An organization may sue on behalf of its members when members would have standing, the interests are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim nor requested relief requires individual member participation.
- Under the dormant Commerce Clause, a state law may be unconstitutional if, despite facial neutrality, it has the practical effect of discriminating against interstate commerce or operating as economic protectionism.
- When a state law is discriminatory in effect, the state must justify it by showing that legitimate local interests cannot be served by reasonable, less discriminatory alternatives; if such alternatives exist, the law is invalid.

## Conclusion

North Carolina’s apple-labeling rule was unconstitutional because it functionally discriminated against Washington apples by increasing out-of-state costs and eliminating a marketing advantage, and the state could have pursued its consumer-protection aims through less discriminatory means; the Washington commission could bring the challenge on behalf of affected growers and dealers.


Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)