United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Congress banned the interstate shipment of “filled milk” (milk mixed with vegetable oils). Carolene Products challenged the law, arguing it was unconstitutional economic regulation. The Supreme Court upheld the statute under the Commerce Clause and adopted a very deferential standard of review for economic legislation.

3) Why It Mattered
This case is famous for Footnote Four, which suggested that while economic regulations get judicial deference, stricter scrutiny may be required for laws that restrict political rights, target minorities, or interfere with the democratic process.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Strong judicial deference to Congress on economic regulation.
• Provided: The seed of modern tiers of scrutiny in constitutional law.
• Took Away: The Court’s earlier aggressive stance against economic legislation (Lochner era).

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The ruling was restrained on the main issue, but Footnote Four laid the groundwork for a more active judicial role in protecting civil rights and liberties.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Courts usually uphold economic and business regulations, but they carefully scrutinize laws that affect speech, voting, religion, or minority rights — thanks to the logic first outlined here.

• Commerce Clause
• Economic Regulation
• Footnote Four