In the case of Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry et al., 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, Gentry and others who were officials from California's Department of Fish and Game Commission. The plaintiff, Bayside Fish Flour Company had challenged a state law that prohibited reduction plants from processing sardines into fish meal or oil during certain periods to conserve fish resources for canning purposes only. The company argued that this law violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process and denying equal protection under the laws as it favored one industry over another. However, the court upheld California’s right to regulate its fisheries in order to protect natural resources within its borders based on scientific findings about conservation needs at different times throughout a year.

In the dissenting opinion for Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law regulating fish meal production was an overreach of state power and infringed upon interstate commerce rights. The dissenting justices believed that while states have the right to regulate industries within their borders, they should not interfere with businesses operating in multiple states or those involved in interstate trade. They contended that by upholding this law, which effectively forced out-of-state companies to comply with California’s regulations if they wished to do business there, the court had allowed one state too much control over national commerce matters. This could set a dangerous precedent where individual states could dictate terms of trade across state lines, potentially disrupting free market principles and undermining federal authority.