In the 1938 case of Currin et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., tobacco growers challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the Agricultural Adjustment Act that allowed for regulation and inspection of their crops by federal officials before they could be sold at auction. The plaintiffs argued this violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and was an overreach of Congress's Commerce Clause powers. However, the Supreme Court upheld these regulations as constitutional under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The court reasoned that while not all activities affecting commerce fall within its regulatory scope, when those activities have such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, then Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise general oversight.

In the dissenting opinion for Currin et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 was unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to a small group of tobacco growers and violated principles of federalism by allowing federal regulation in areas traditionally left to state control. He contended that Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate local activities like tobacco grading or sales at specific markets unless they directly affected interstate commerce. Furthermore, he believed that letting two-thirds majority vote among producers bind all producers was undemocratic and gave undue influence to special interest groups within an industry.