The U.S. Supreme Court case Capital Cities Cable, Inc., et al. v. Crisp, Director, Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (1983) revolved around a conflict between federal and state regulations concerning the advertisement of alcohol on cable television networks. The State of Oklahoma had passed laws prohibiting the advertising of liquor sales in states where it was illegal to sell such products; however, these advertisements were being broadcast into Oklahoma from out-of-state sources via cable TV companies like Capital Cities Cable. The court ruled that while states have authority to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment, this power does not extend to regulating interstate commerce or communications which fall under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause and Communications Act respectively. Therefore, it was decided that Oklahoma's law was unconstitutional as it conflicted with federal policy and infringed upon powers reserved for Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's view that Oklahoma's ban on alcohol advertising via cable television violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. He argued that this case was not about interstate commerce but rather a state regulation of liquor sales within its borders - an area where states traditionally have broad powers to regulate under their police power and under Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment. The justice believed that Oklahoma had a legitimate interest in controlling liquor consumption and promoting temperance among its residents which justified restrictions on advertising methods used by out-of-state wineries or breweries targeting Oklahomans through local cable systems. Furthermore, he contended that there were no less restrictive alternatives available to achieve these public health objectives since other forms of media could not reach as many people as effectively as cable TV did.