## Facts

- Massachusetts dairy farmers lost market share to lower-cost out-of-state producers, and the state warned many local farms would soon fail absent higher milk prices.
- The Massachusetts Commissioner of Food and Agriculture declared an emergency and issued a milk pricing order.
- The order imposed a monthly assessment on all fluid milk sold by dealers to Massachusetts retailers, calculated by reference to a $15 target price and the federal blend price.
- The order applied to all such milk regardless of origin, but most milk sold in Massachusetts was produced out of state.
- Assessment proceeds were placed in a state fund and distributed monthly only to Massachusetts dairy farmers, in proportion to their share of in-state raw milk production.
- The structure returned the assessment to in-state producers (and could more than offset it) while leaving the assessment on out-of-state milk unreimbursed, effectively raising the relative cost of out-of-state milk.
- West Lynn Creamery and another dealer refused to make required payments; the state initiated license-revocation proceedings.
- The dealers sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging a violation of the Commerce Clause; state courts denied relief and upheld the order.

## Issues

1. Whether a state program that assesses all in-state milk sales but distributes the proceeds exclusively to in-state farmers discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
2. Whether a facially neutral assessment combined with an in-state-only subsidy is unconstitutional when integrated in a single scheme that shifts the subsidy’s cost primarily onto out-of-state producers.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state-court judgment and held the pricing order unconstitutional.
- The Court concluded that the program’s purpose and effect were to assist higher-cost Massachusetts farmers in competing with lower-cost out-of-state farmers.
- The Court treated the integrated assessment-and-subsidy scheme as the functional equivalent of a tariff because it made out-of-state milk more expensive while offsetting the burden for in-state producers through an exclusive subsidy.
- The Court rejected the argument that the scheme was valid merely because a nondiscriminatory tax and a local subsidy might each be permissible if enacted separately.
- The Court held that once a measure is properly characterized as discriminatory, it is subject to a demanding standard and is generally invalid absent a showing that legitimate local objectives cannot be achieved through reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, which was not shown.

## Legal Principles

- The dormant Commerce Clause forbids state economic protectionism that benefits in-state interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.
- Courts evaluate a measure’s practical operation and economic effect, not only its facial neutrality, in determining whether it discriminates against interstate commerce.
- A state may not effectively neutralize out-of-state producers’ competitive advantages through tariff-like mechanisms.
- The legality of a tax and a subsidy viewed separately does not establish the constitutionality of combining them into an integrated program that burdens interstate commerce.
- A discriminatory scheme is generally invalid unless the state proves it serves a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory means.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Massachusetts’s milk assessment earmarked to subsidize only in-state dairy farmers operated like a tariff and therefore discriminated against interstate commerce, violating the dormant Commerce Clause.


West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994)