In the 1980 case of Anderson Bros. Ford et al. v. Valencia et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving automobile dealerships and their financing practices, specifically in relation to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The plaintiffs, customers who had purchased cars from Anderson Brothers Ford dealership, alleged that they were not provided with accurate finance charge disclosures as required by TILA. The defendants argued that they should be exempt from liability because they acted in good faith compliance with Federal Reserve Board regulations interpreting TILA's requirements. The court held that creditors could not be held liable for incorrect disclosure if it was due to bona fide errors despite procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors - this included clerical mistakes or calculation errors but did not extend to legal misinterpretations of what information must be disclosed under TILA. However, importantly, the court also found that auto dealers cannot claim protection under these provisions unless they are assignees of creditor rights and subject themselves voluntarily to potential liability for statutory penalties.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson Bros. Ford et al. v. Valencia et al., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law requiring car dealerships to close on either Saturday or Sunday was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding religious freedom and economic regulation. He contended that this ruling contradicted earlier decisions in which laws were struck down because they imposed substantial burdens on religious practices, even if those laws had secular purposes and applied equally to everyone regardless of religion. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that this case involved purely economic regulation rather than individual rights, arguing instead that it concerned both aspects simultaneously since it affected how individuals could exercise their religion through their businesses.