In the case of Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri (1951), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., a manufacturer that was challenging a Missouri law requiring employers to pay their employees at least once per month. The company argued that this law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce since it had operations in multiple states and preferred to use a uniform payment schedule across all its locations. The court agreed with Day-Brite's argument, stating that while states have power to regulate local aspects of interstate commerce as long as Congress has not acted on them, they cannot interfere or burden such commerce unnecessarily or excessively without congressional approval. Therefore, it held that Missouri’s wage payment statute was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on interstate businesses like Day-Brite.

In the dissenting opinion for Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring employers to pay women equal wages as men was an overreach of federal power and violated states' rights under the Constitution. He contended that while he personally supported wage equality between genders, it should be up to individual states - not the federal government - to enact such laws if they so choose. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential unintended consequences of this ruling on businesses and labor markets in different regions with varying economic conditions across America.