336 U.S. 525, 69 S.Ct. 657, 93 L.Ed. 865 ( 1949)
The Hood Company, a Massachusettscorporation, distributed in Bostonmilk collected at the company's three milk-receiving stations in the state of New York. When Hoodsought a license for an additional receiving station in New York, the state Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets refused on the ground that an expansion of Hood's facilities would reduce the supply of milk for local markets and would result in destructive competition in a market area already well served. The company brought certiorari from an adverse judgment in the New YorkCourt of Appeals.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the power of the State of New York to deny additional facilities to acquire and ship milk in interstate commerce where the grounds of denial are that such limitation upon interstate business will protect and advance local economic interests. . . .
Our decision in a milk litigation most relevant to the present controversy deals with the converse of the present situation. Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511. In that case, New York placed conditions and limitations on the local sale of milk imported from Vermont designed in practical effect to exclude it, while here its order proposed to limit the local facilities for purchase of additional milk so as to withhold milk from export. The State agreed then, as now, that the Commerce Clause prohibits it from directly curtailing movement of milk into or out of the State. But in the earlier case, it contended that the same result could be accomplished by controlling delivery, bottling and sale after arrival, while here it says it can do so by curtailing facilities for its purchase and receipt before it is shipped out. In neither case is the measure supported by health or safety considerations but solely by protection of local economic interests, such as supply for local consumption and limitation of competition. This Court unanimously rejected the State's contention in the Seelig case and held that the Commerce Clause, even in the absence of congressional action, prohibits such regulations for such ends. . . .
The Constitution, said Mr. Justice Cardozo, for the unanimous Court, "was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division." . . .
The desire of the Forefathers to federalize regulation of foreign and interstate commerce stands in sharp contrast to their jealous preservation of the State's power over its internal affairs. No other federal power was so universally assumed to be necessary, no other State power was so readily relinquished. There was no desire to authorize federal interference with social conditions or legal institutions of the States. Even the Bill of Rights amendments were framed only as a limitation upon the powers of Congress. The States were quite content with their several and