Logourl black

Gardner v. Toilet Goods Association

United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 167 (1967)


Facts

The Color Additive Amendments of 1960 (the CAA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 321-76, required all color additives to be cleared and each batch certified as a matter of public safety. A color additive that did not satisfy these requirements was considered unsafe and adulterated, and anyone who placed such additives into the market was subject to inunctions, criminal penalties, and seizure of goods. The CAA authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Gardner (defendant), and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (Commissioner) to implement regulations giving effect to these requirements. The Commissioner issued a rule that all diluents, which are color additive mixtures that are not themselves color additives, were subject to the CAA. The Commissioner determined that any substance intended only to color the human body, like most makeup, was a color additive within the meaning of the CAA. Lastly, while hair dyes were exempt from certain regulations if the labels included a notice instructing the user to conduct a patch test to check for skin irritation, the Commissioner nevertheless concluded that if patch testing did not provide a safeguard, the exemption was inapplicable. Multiple producers (plaintiffs) of goods that fall within the Commissioner’s definition of color additives filed a pre-enforcement suit to enjoin the regulations. The government asserted that such a challenge was improper before enforcement had occurred, but the plaintiffs asserted that unnecessary compliance would cost tens of millions of dollars, and noncompliance would subject them to severe penalties. The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a pre-enforcement suit was proper, and the government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Harlan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Fortas, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Here's why 85,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 11,989 briefs - keyed to 160 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now