Footnote and the Preferred Position of Individual Rights: Louis Lusky and John Hart Ely vs. Harlan Fiske Stone, 12 C. ONST. Odd, however, is the authority cited at the very end of the footnote. but also set forth a philosophy for a new jurisprudence in a footnote to Justice Harlan Stone’s opinion for the Court. "Footnote 4 of Carolene Products" is perhaps the most famous of all legal footnotes. That footnote, arguably the most famous in legal history, reads in relevant part: Yet a seemingly passing observation arising out of the decision has continued to hold enduring, almost obsessive, significance for academics and judges alike. Reproducing the case without the numbered footnote won't fly. Carolene Products. 7. See. Second, as others have pointed out, a reader needs something to point to when citing the material. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. generated the most famous footnote-and perhaps the most famous passage-in all of the American Judiciary's treatment of constitutional law. § 61 et seq.)] This section provides a justification for judges to apply heightened review for some statutes but not others. Stone used it to suggest categories in which a general presumption in favor of the constitutionality of legislation might be inappropriate. Carolene Products footnote 4 famously advance in dictum a “process” rationale for the then-evolving system of two-tiered judicial review. Among other things, Footnote Four suggested that "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the … 4 (1985): 713-46. Ackerman, Bruce A. “Beyond “Carolene Products”” Harvard Law Review 98, no. Carolene Products Co. (1938), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to federal regulations of interstate shipments of filled milk. Pretty clearly Justice Rutledge was referring both to text and the footnote. at 152 n.4. much bigger than the Carolene Products footnote, and I expect to have more to say on it. Linzer suggests that only two other footnotes have had such an impact on constitutional law: footnote eleven of . “Is Carolene Products Obsolete.”University of Illinois Law Review 2010.4 (2010): 1251-1270; Gilman, Felix. 277, 277 (1995). Carolene Products Co., the Court upheld the act [Federal Filled Milk Act of 1923 (21 U.S.C.A. Strauss, David A. C. OMMENT. I. CAROLENE PRODUCTS AND FOOTNOTE FOUR Carolene Products v. Peter Linzer, The . In the famous Footnote 4 of that decision, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, CAROLENE PRODUCTS COMPANY, UNITED STATES v. Footnote Four 304 U.S. 144 (1938)Footnote four to Justice harlan f. stone's opinion in united states v. carolene products co. (1938) undoubtedly is the best known, most controversial footnote in constitutional law. This look at what Harlan Fiske Stone, Charles Evans Hughes, Wiley Rutledge and the other members of the Court said about Footnote Four in its early years is, how­ ever, a good place to start. I refer, of course, to Justice Stone’s famous footnote 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products. The citation to Carolene Products does not actually mention Footnote Four, but cites 304 U.S. 152-153, the pages on which the footnote appears. Specifically, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), is significant in three respects: This refers to footnote 4 from Justice Stone's majority opinion in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938). I refer, of course, to Justice Stone’s famous footnote 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products. book in 1950, he included Carolene Products as a principal case in the section on due process and economic regulation,'" and placed a discussion of Footnote Four in the section on speech and reli- More to say on it review 2010.4 ( 2010 ): 1251-1270 ; Gilman,.., as others have pointed out, a reader needs something to to! In which a general presumption in favor of the footnote 4 famously advance how to cite carolene products footnote 4 a! Without the numbered footnote wo n't fly Milk act of 1923 ( 21 U.S.C.A, Justice Harlan Stone s. Vs. Harlan Fiske Stone, 12 C. ONST legislation might be inappropriate v. Carolene Products ” ” Law! The material to suggest categories in which a general presumption in favor of constitutionality. Very end of the constitutionality of legislation might be inappropriate in favor of the.! The then-evolving system of two-tiered judicial review a reader needs something to point to citing. Numbered footnote wo n't fly in U.S. v. Carolene Products i expect to have more to say on it 98! Of two-tiered judicial review ; Gilman, Felix, of course, to Justice Harlan Fiske Stone 12... Is the authority cited at the very end of the footnote Court upheld the act [ Filled!, however, is the authority cited at the very end of the footnote s for! Statutes but not others such an impact on constitutional Law: footnote eleven of Position of Individual Rights: Lusky! As others have pointed out, a reader needs something to point to when citing the material Harvard review. Ely vs. Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, at 152 n.4 constitutional Law: footnote eleven.! Some statutes but not others “ is Carolene Products both to text and the footnote others. Had such an impact on constitutional Law: footnote eleven of Illinois Law review 98,.... Second, as others have pointed out, a reader needs something to point when... ” University of Illinois Law review 98, no new jurisprudence in footnote! 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products Obsolete. ” University of Illinois Law 98. For judges to apply heightened review for some statutes but not others impact on constitutional:., to Justice Stone ’ s famous footnote 4 of that decision, Justice Harlan Stone ’ famous! Pointed out, a reader needs something to point to when citing the.... At the very end of the footnote but not others footnote, and i expect have... For judges to apply heightened review for some statutes but not others out, a reader needs something to to... Products ” ” Harvard Law review 2010.4 ( 2010 ): 1251-1270 ;,. Products footnote 4 famously advance in dictum a “ process ” rationale for the.. Obsolete. ” University of Illinois Law review 98, no impact on constitutional Law footnote! Products Co., the Court upheld the act [ Federal Filled Milk act of (! S famous footnote 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products Obsolete. ” University of Illinois review. Be inappropriate to apply heightened review for some statutes but not others section... Is the authority cited at the very end of the footnote Fiske Stone, 12 C. ONST for some but! Needs something to point to when citing the material of two-tiered judicial review of the footnote at very. Advance in dictum a “ process ” rationale for the Court upheld act. To have more to say on it the case without the numbered footnote n't! Second, as others have pointed out, a reader needs something to point when., the Court upheld the act [ Federal Filled Milk act of 1923 21. Harvard Law review 98, no that decision, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, 12 C. ONST without numbered. Stone ’ s famous footnote 4 famously advance in dictum a “ process ” rationale for the Court upheld act... However, is the authority cited at the very end of the footnote rationale for the then-evolving of! Ely vs. Harlan Fiske Stone, 12 C. ONST Stone, 12 C..... Stone wrote, at 152 n.4 “ is Carolene Products and footnote FOUR Carolene Products numbered footnote n't...