In the case of Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al. v. Lowe, doing business under the trade name of Capitol Hill Gin Company in 1929, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding state regulation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Lowe's company (Capitol Hill Gin Company), was involved in both intrastate and interstate commerce but argued that it should not be subject to certain regulations imposed by Oklahoma’s Corporation Commission due to its involvement in interstate activities. However, the court held that even though part of their business was conducted across state lines (interstate), they were still subject to local laws for those operations carried out within state boundaries (intrastate). This decision reinforced states' rights to regulate businesses operating within their borders while also acknowledging federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al. v. Lowe, it was argued that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating businesses within its borders to protect public welfare and promote fair competition. The justices contended that states should have broad discretion in determining what constitutes reasonable regulation, especially when it comes to complex industries like alcohol production and distribution where there are significant potential harms associated with unregulated activity. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Commerce Clause as severely limiting state regulatory power over interstate commerce, arguing instead for a more balanced approach that recognizes both federal supremacy and state sovereignty rights under our system of dual federalism.