UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
July 31, 1996
SANI-DAIRY, A DIVISION OF PENN TRAFFIC CO., INC.; JOHN P. STRITTMATTER, D/B/A STRITTMATTERS DAIRY; DELBERT THOMAS; ED THOMAS; LOWELL FRIEDLIN; ARTHUR BLOOM; JAMES L. HARTEIS
CLAYTON YEUTTER, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS, STATE OF NEW YORK
MILK MARKETING, INC.
CLAYTON YEUTTER, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CLAYTON YEUTTER, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *fn*
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civil No. 90-cv-00222) (D.C. Civil No. 90-cv-00236)
Before: NYGAARD, SAROKIN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on March 15, 1996
(Opinion Filed: July 31, 1996)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Several Pennsylvania dairy farmers and a dairy cooperative *fn1 challenge the validity of the Secretary of Agriculture's regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk in the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area. *fn2 Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary's regulations, promulgated under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. Section(s) 601 et seq., violate 7 U.S.C. Section(s) 608c(5)(G), which states:
No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products in any marketing area shall prohibit or in any manner limit, in the case of the products of milk, the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States.
The district court found that the Secretary's regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk in the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area, as applied to plaintiffs, constituted a prohibited economic trade barrier to milk producers and sellers outside the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area. See Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 76, 91-98, 82 S.Ct. 1168, 1175-1180 (1962). The district court awarded plaintiffs restitution and interest. We will now affirm, and in so doing adopt the reasoning of the district court expressed in Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter, ___F.Supp.___, No. CIV.A.90-222J, 1995 WL 848950 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 1995) and Sani-Dairy v. Espy, F.Supp., NO. CIV.A. 90-222J, CIV.A. 90-236J, 1993 WL 832147 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 1993).