The Promise of Carolene Products: A Footnote to the Footnote

Neelanjan Maitra
{"title":"The Promise of Carolene Products: A Footnote to the Footnote","authors":"Neelanjan Maitra","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1375619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s upholding of Congress’s Filled Milk Act of 1923 which banned the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with certain fats or oils excited little comment at the time. Yet a seemingly passing observation arising out of the decision has continued to hold enduring, almost obsessive, significance for academics and judges alike. I refer, of course, to Justice Stone’s famous footnote 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products. That footnote, arguably the most famous in legal history, reads in relevant part: “…It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation…Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, or racial minorities…whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.”The promise of this brief reference to a heightened role for judicial review where political processes were likely to work against discrete and insular minorities served to inspire John Hart Ely’s Democracy and Distrust. Forty years after Carolene Products had been decided, Ely agreed that “discrete and insular minorities” could often be failed by political processes and that courts should step in to remedy such failures. Ely realized, as Justice Stone did, that discrete and insular minorities could forge political alliances and “mutual defense pacts” with other minorities as well as with broader majorities. He knew, however, that such wheeling and dealing has its limitations – sometimes political allies simply cannot be found.","PeriodicalId":166493,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","volume":"44 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1375619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s upholding of Congress’s Filled Milk Act of 1923 which banned the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with certain fats or oils excited little comment at the time. Yet a seemingly passing observation arising out of the decision has continued to hold enduring, almost obsessive, significance for academics and judges alike. I refer, of course, to Justice Stone’s famous footnote 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products. That footnote, arguably the most famous in legal history, reads in relevant part: “…It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation…Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, or racial minorities…whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.”The promise of this brief reference to a heightened role for judicial review where political processes were likely to work against discrete and insular minorities served to inspire John Hart Ely’s Democracy and Distrust. Forty years after Carolene Products had been decided, Ely agreed that “discrete and insular minorities” could often be failed by political processes and that courts should step in to remedy such failures. Ely realized, as Justice Stone did, that discrete and insular minorities could forge political alliances and “mutual defense pacts” with other minorities as well as with broader majorities. He knew, however, that such wheeling and dealing has its limitations – sometimes political allies simply cannot be found.
卡罗琳产品的承诺:脚注的脚注
最高法院支持国会1923年的《填充牛奶法》,该法案禁止在州际贸易中运输含有某些脂肪或油的脱脂牛奶,当时没有引起什么评论。然而,这一判决引发的一个看似短暂的观察,对学者和法官们来说,仍然具有持久的、几乎是强迫性的意义。当然,我指的是斯通大法官在美国诉卡罗琳产品案中著名的脚注。这个注脚可以说是法律史上最著名的注脚,在相关部分是这样写的:“……现在没有必要考虑限制那些通常可以预期会导致不受欢迎的立法被废除的政治过程的立法,是否要在第十四修正案的一般禁止下受到比大多数其他类型的立法更严格的司法审查……我们也不需要调查是否有类似的考虑进入针对特定宗教的法规的审查,或种族少数群体……对离散和孤立的少数群体的偏见是否可能是一种特殊情况,这种情况往往会严重限制通常用来保护少数群体的政治进程的运作,因此可能需要相应地进行更深入的司法调查。”在政治过程可能不利于离散和孤立的少数群体的情况下,这一简短提及司法审查的重要性的承诺,激发了约翰·哈特·伊利的《民主与不信任》。在卡罗琳产品公司被裁定四十年后,伊利同意,“离散和孤立的少数民族”经常会因政治进程而失败,法院应该介入来补救这种失败。和斯通法官一样,伊利也意识到,孤立的少数群体可以与其他少数群体以及更广泛的多数群体建立政治联盟和“共同防御条约”。然而,他知道,这种投机取巧有其局限性——有时根本找不到政治盟友。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信