In the case of Borden's Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York, et al., 1935, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York state law that regulated milk prices violated the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The law in question required milk dealers to pay minimum prices for milk purchased from farmers and set maximum retail prices for consumers within certain regions in an effort to stabilize market conditions during times when supply exceeded demand. Borden’s Farm Products argued that this regulation interfered with interstate commerce by effectively controlling out-of-state transactions and also infringed upon their rights under due process by dictating what they could charge customers. The court ruled against Borden's Farm Products on both counts, upholding the constitutionality of New York's price control legislation as it applied to dairy products sold within its borders. It found no violation of either clause because states have broad powers under their police authority to regulate local businesses affecting public health or welfare even if such regulations indirectly affect interstate commerce; moreover, there was no deprivation without due process since reasonable price controls are permissible exercises of state power.

In the dissenting opinion for Borden's Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, Justice Stone argued that New York state law did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution as it was intended to prevent destructive competition in milk production and distribution which could lead to a shortage of supply or an increase in prices. He believed that states should have power over their internal affairs, including economic regulation, unless there is clear evidence that these regulations are affecting interstate commerce negatively. In this case, he didn't see any substantial proof showing such negative impact on interstate commerce by New York’s Milk Control Act.