The U.S. Supreme Court case Brimmer v. Rebman in 1890 revolved around the constitutionality of a Virginia law that prohibited the sale of meat from animals slaughtered more than 100 miles away, unless it was cured or packed. The plaintiff, Rebman, was convicted for selling fresh beef from Illinois and appealed his conviction on grounds that this law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce. The court ruled against him stating that states have the right to enact laws protecting public health even if they affect interstate commerce as long as they are not discriminatory or protectionist in nature. In this case, since there were legitimate concerns about preserving meat transported over long distances without refrigeration (a technology not widely available at that time), Virginia's law did not violate constitutional principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Brimmer v. Rebman, Justice Bradley argued that the state of Virginia's law prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine was unconstitutional because it interfered with interstate commerce. He believed that states should not have the power to ban products simply because they compete with local industries or are disliked by a majority of residents. According to him, such laws were protectionist measures rather than legitimate exercises of police powers aimed at protecting public health and safety. Furthermore, he pointed out that if every state had similar laws banning different products based on local preferences or economic interests, it would create chaos in national trade and undermine federal authority over interstate commerce.