| Litigants: | Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission |
| Arguedate: | February 22 |
| Argueyear: | 1977 |
| Decidedate: | June 20 |
| Decideyear: | 1977 |
| Fullname: | Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission |
| Usvol: | 432 |
| Uspage: | 333 |
| Parallelcitations: | 97 S. Ct. 2434; 53 L. Ed. 2d 383; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 123 |
| Prior: | Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n v. Holshouser, 408 F. Supp. 857 (E.D.N.C. 1976) |
| Holding: | North Carolina violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state apple growers. |
| Majority: | Burger |
| Joinmajority: | unanimous court |
| Notparticipating: | Rehnquist |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. art. I ยง 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause) |
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than the United States Department of Agriculture grade. However, displaying the USDA grade was not required. Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated the Commerce Clause because they discriminated against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.
John R. Jordan, Jr., argued the cause for Hunt. With him on the brief were Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Millard R. Rich, Jr., Deputy Attorney General. Slade Gorton, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission. With him on the brief were Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Attorney General, and James Arneil, Special Assistant Attorney General.
The Supreme Court decision established the concept of association standing, which allows for an association (in this case, the Commission) that represents one or more parties that have demonstrable injury to bring the case to trial with standing under Article III.[1]