## Facts

- Oregon law authorized an agricultural agency, after investigation and public hearing and with approval of the Director of Agriculture, to promulgate official standards for containers used to market horticultural products.
- In 1933, the agency issued an order prescribing mandatory standard containers for certain fruits and vegetables, including detailed specifications for strawberry and raspberry packaging (a crate containing “24-pint hallocks” with specified dimensions).
- Pacific States Box & Basket Co., a California container manufacturer selling into Oregon, made different container types and claimed the Oregon standard effectively excluded its products from the Oregon market.
- The company sued Oregon officials in federal district court to enjoin enforcement, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection) and the Commerce Clause, and alleging conflict with federal standard-container statutes.
- The district court denied preliminary relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state facts entitling the company to relief; the company appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Oregon’s mandatory container specifications for strawberries and raspberries were so arbitrary or capricious as to violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the state could, through lawfully delegated administrative authority, establish mandatory container standards as a valid exercise of the police power.
3. Whether the order denied equal protection by granting or tending to grant a monopoly to favored container manufacturers.
4. Whether the order conflicted with federal standard-container legislation or imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce.
5. Whether a constitutional attack on a police-power regulation may proceed on general allegations, or must plead specific supporting facts to rebut the presumption of constitutionality.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The Court held that prescribing container standards for marketing horticultural products is within state police power, and the challenged specifications were not arbitrary or capricious on the pleadings.
- The Court rejected claims of federal statutory conflict and undue burden on interstate commerce.
- The Court rejected the equal protection/monopoly theory, stating that even an incidental monopoly would not invalidate an otherwise proper police-power regulation.
- The Court held that conclusory allegations were insufficient; the complaint had to allege specific facts overcoming the presumption that the regulation rested on facts justifying it.

## Legal Principles

- States may regulate the standardization of containers used to market agricultural and horticultural products as an exercise of the police power, including for consumer protection and preservation/shipping concerns.
- If a regulation falls within lawfully delegated authority, courts presume the existence of facts justifying the regulation; this presumption applies to statutes, ordinances, and administrative orders.
- A police-power regulation satisfies due process if a reasonably conceivable state of facts could support it; the challenger bears the burden to show arbitrariness.
- A regulation does not violate the Commerce Clause merely because it affects in-state use of out-of-state goods after they enter the state and are removed from original packages, and it is not invalid absent undue burden on interstate commerce.
- In constitutional challenges to police-power measures, general conclusions of law or fact do not suffice; the complaint must plead specific facts to rebut the presumption of constitutionality.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Oregon’s mandatory berry-container standards, treated the agency order as entitled to the same presumption of constitutionality as legislation when issued under valid delegation, and required specific factual pleading to state a federal constitutional claim of arbitrariness, discrimination, or improper burden on interstate commerce.


Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935)