Ocheesee Creamery v. Putnam

Ocheesee Creamery (the creamery) (plaintiff) was a small dairy creamery located on a Florida farm. It sold various all-natural dairy products, including skim milk. Per usual practice, the skim milk was created by allowing cream to rise to the top of the milk and then skimming it off, removing the fat. The process removed almost all vitamin A from the milk. Florida law prohibited selling milk products that were not Grade A, and Grade A skim milk required restoration of vitamin A. Consequently, most skim-milk manufacturers used an additive to restore vitamin A. However, because the creamery sold only all-natural products, it refused to use such an additive. The state therefore told the creamery that it must label its skim milk as imitation milk product. The creamery objected and proposed five alternatives that labeled the product as skim milk but alerted consumers to the lack of vitamin A. The state rejected all five alternatives, insisting that the creamery label the product something other than skim milk. The creamery sued Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam and Chief of the Florida Bureau of Dairy Industry Zach Conlin (defendants), arguing that the state’s refusal to allow the creamery to label its product as skim milk constituted an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The district court granted summary judgment in the state’s favor, concluding that calling the product skim milk was inherently misleading and the speech was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The creamery appealed.