## Facts

- Milnot Company manufactured “Milnot,” a canned product made by removing butterfat from milk, adding soybean oil and vitamins A and D, and evaporating the mixture to a milk-like consistency.
- The record showed Milnot was wholesome, nutritious, and useful as a food source, and it was sold with labeling that did not purport to be whole milk.
- The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare was responsible for enforcing the Filled Milk Act, which prohibited interstate shipment of “filled milk” resembling milk or cream where milk fat is removed and replaced with non-milk fat or oil.
- Milnot sought declaratory relief, arguing either that Milnot was not “filled milk” under the statute or, alternatively, that applying the Act to Milnot violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Since the Act’s enactment, food processing and the market had changed, and many similar milk-substitute products (e.g., whiteners and cooking additives) were sold in interstate commerce without being barred by the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether Milnot fell within the statutory definition of “filled milk” under the Filled Milk Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 61–64).
2. If Milnot was “filled milk,” whether applying the Act to Milnot violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because the Act no longer had a rational basis under contemporary facts.

## Decision

- The court held Milnot was “filled milk” within the Act because it was made from skimmed milk with non-milk fat substituted and was in imitation or semblance of evaporated milk.
- The court granted summary judgment for Milnot and denied the Secretary’s motion.
- The court declared the Filled Milk Act unconstitutional as applied to Milnot because, under present conditions, enforcement lacked a rational basis and violated due process.

## Legal Principles

- A product can fall squarely within a statute’s literal definition while still prevailing on an as-applied constitutional challenge to the statute’s enforcement.
- Under rational-basis review, a statute may become unconstitutional as applied if the factual assumptions supporting its original justification materially change so that the statute’s application no longer rationally relates to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- Selective prohibition of one product while substantially similar products are freely sold can support a finding that enforcement is arbitrary and irrational for due process purposes.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Milnot met the Filled Milk Act’s definition, but that contemporary nutritional knowledge and market conditions made continued enforcement against Milnot irrational; the Act therefore violated the Fifth Amendment as applied to Milnot.


Milnot Co. v. Richardson, 350 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. Ill. 1972)