Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Local Food Systems

Farmers Claim Inspection of
Facilities Unconstitutional

Marne Coit
Research Fellow

Summary of Decision

In Hill v. Courter, 344 F.Supp.2d 484, (E.D. Va. 2004) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that under the Younger doctrine, a federal court must abstain from deciding a constitutional issue currently pending before a state court.

Background

Plaintiffs Mary S. Vanderwoude Hill and James J. Hill produced both hard and soft goat's milk cheese on their farm which they sold at a local farmers' market. See id. at 487. Under Virginia state law, inspectors from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) have the authority to conduct annual inspections of "any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which foods are manufactured, processed, packed, or held for introduction into commerce." Id. at 488. In 1999, the VDACS became aware that plaintiffs were producing cheese on their farm, and subsequently attempted to schedule an inspection. See id. at 477-78. Plaintiffs voluntarily submitted to inspections in 2000 and in 2001, but refused to permit agents to conduct inspections in 2002 and 2003. See id. at 488. VDACS then began criminal proceedings against plaintiffs for refusing to allow inspection of their cheese making facilities, in violation of state law. See id.

Plaintiffs argued that the state law constituted a warrantless inspection and violated their Fourth Amendment right against such searches. See id. The Fauquier County General District Court rejected plaintiffs' argument and plaintiffs appealed to the Fauquier County Circuit Court, which also rejected plaintiffs' argument. See id. Plaintiffs then petitioned the Court of Appeals of Virginia and began the current action in federal court while their petition was pending with the Court of Appeals. See id. at 488-89.

Analysis and Holding

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that, pursuant to the Younger doctrine, a federal court must abstain from ruling on constitutional challenges to a state action when those same issues are pending before a state court, and accordingly dismissed the action without reaching the merits of the case. See id. at 494.

The case was decided on November 8, 2004; this summary was posted February 12, 2008.