The Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson case in 1941 involved a dispute over the constitutionality of an Alabama law that prohibited the sale of yellow-colored oleomargarine within the state. The plaintiff, Cloverleaf Butter Company, argued that this law violated their rights under both the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S Constitution by unfairly restricting interstate commerce and discriminating against out-of-state businesses. However, after considering these arguments, as well as those put forth by Commissioner Patterson on behalf of Alabama's Department of Agriculture and Industries (who defended this legislation), it was determined by Supreme Court Justices that such regulation did not infringe upon federal authority or violate constitutional protections for equal treatment under law because its purpose was to prevent consumer deception rather than hinder trade between states or favor local industries over others outside Alabama.

In the dissenting opinion for Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, it was argued that Alabama's law requiring all butter to be packaged in rectangular cartons violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by placing an undue burden on interstate commerce. The justice contended that this regulation did not serve a legitimate health or safety purpose and instead seemed designed to protect local dairy producers from out-of-state competition, which is not a permissible use of state regulatory power under existing precedents interpreting the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view that courts should defer to legislative judgments about economic regulations unless they are clearly unreasonable; instead, he believed courts have an active role in scrutinizing such laws to ensure they do not infringe upon constitutional rights or exceed states' proper authority.