In the case of Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that a Hawaii law taxing imported liquor at a higher rate than locally produced alcohol was unconstitutional as it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. The state had argued that this tax difference was designed to encourage local industry and preserve Hawaiian culture by promoting drinks made from okolehao (a root) and pineapple wine. However, in a 5-4 decision, the court held that while states have power to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment, they cannot use this power to discriminate against interstate commerce or favor local products over out-of-state goods without sufficient justification.

In the dissenting opinion for Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to strike down Hawaii's tax exemption on locally produced alcohol was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court. He contended that this case should have been treated as a subsidy case rather than a discrimination against interstate commerce case because it involved an exemption from taxation rather than imposition of taxes or tariffs. He pointed out that there are numerous examples where states favor local industries through subsidies without violating the Commerce Clause, and he saw no reason why tax exemptions should be treated differently from direct subsidies in this context. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that promoting local industry is not a legitimate state interest; instead, he believed it is one of many valid reasons for differential treatment under state laws.