The U.S. Supreme Court case California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., et al., 1979 revolved around the constitutionality of a California law that required wine producers to set and maintain specific prices for their products, which was challenged by Midcal Aluminum, a non-wine producer who bought bulk wine and resold it to retailers at lower prices than those established by the state-mandated price schedules. The court ruled in favor of Midcal Aluminum, holding that the pricing system violated federal antitrust laws because it restrained trade and promoted anti-competitive practices. The court found that although states have broad power under the 21st Amendment to regulate liquor sales within their borders, this power does not supersede federal commerce powers or allow them to establish programs contrary to national policies against restraint of trade.

In the dissenting opinion for California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on antitrust laws and state regulation of liquor sales. He believed that the Sherman Act should not be applied to a state statute regulating wine prices because it interferes with states' rights to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment. According to him, this amendment gives states broad power over liquor distribution within their borders and any attempt by federal courts to apply federal antitrust laws in such cases would infringe upon these powers granted by Constitution itself. Furthermore, he contended that if there were concerns about potential anti-competitive effects of such regulations, they should be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation of existing law.