In the case of Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a New York law regulating liquor prices was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The law required distillers and suppliers to provide "affirmation" or "price schedules," essentially committing them to sell their products at a specific price in New York for a month and not selling it anywhere else in the US at a lower rate during that period. Brown-Forman Distillers challenged this regulation arguing that it controlled interstate commerce by effectively dictating pricing outside of New York state boundaries as well. The court agreed with Brown-Forman's argument, stating that while states have power to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment, they cannot pass laws which place an undue burden on interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially disrupt interstate commerce. They contended that the New York law, which required liquor companies to commit to a monthly price for their products and prohibited them from selling at lower prices in other states during that month, did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses or favor local ones unfairly. Instead, it applied equally to all distillers selling within New York state regardless of where they were based. The dissent also pointed out that this law served a legitimate public interest by preventing certain business practices such as predatory pricing and price discrimination between different markets.