Constitutional Law-Relation of Federal and State Governments- Applicability of State Minimum Price Regulations to Federal Procurement

Authors

Alexander E. Bennett, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

The United States accepted the lowest bids for the supply of milk at three military installations in California. Because these bids were below the minimum prices for wholesale milk prescribed by state law, California instituted proceedings in the state courts for civil damages and injunctive relief against the successful bidders. The United States brought a separate action in a federal district court asking that the state be enjoined from applying its minimum price regulations to milk purchases by the armed services on the grounds that the military installations were federal enclaves over which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction and that the state regulatory scheme burdened the United States in the exercise of its powers to maintain the armed forces and to regulate federal territory. The three-judge district court granted the injunction on a motion for summary judgment. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed in part and in part vacated and remanded, three Justices dissenting. The application of state minimum price regulations to purchases by the armed services out of appropriated funds is inconsistent with the federal military-procurement policy. Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963).

Recommended Citation

Alexander E. Bennett, Constitutional Law-Relation of Federal and State Governments- Applicability of State Minimum Price Regulations to Federal Procurement, 62 Mich. L. Rev. 331 (1963).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol62/iss2/6