In the case of Edward Rutledge Timber Company et al. v. Farrell, 1920, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law could regulate wages and hours for workers in industries that had an impact on interstate commerce without violating federal authority over such commerce. The dispute arose when Montana enacted a statute setting minimum wage and maximum working hour standards for lumber industry employees. The Edward Rutledge Timber Company challenged this law arguing it interfered with their ability to compete in interstate markets by increasing operational costs. The Supreme Court ruled against the timber company stating that while Congress has exclusive power over interstate commerce, this does not prevent states from exercising their police powers to protect health, safety or welfare of its citizens even if it indirectly affects such commerce. Therefore, Montana's regulation did not infrally upon federal jurisdiction as it was within its rights to enact laws safeguarding worker’s rights and conditions.

In the dissenting opinion for Edward Rutledge Timber Company et al. v. Farrell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring timber companies to pay into a workers' compensation fund violated principles of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this requirement unfairly singled out timber companies and imposed an undue burden on them compared to other industries in the state. They also questioned whether there was sufficient evidence showing that logging operations posed such unique risks as to justify their inclusion in this special category of businesses subject to additional regulation and financial obligations. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power by states if allowed unchecked discretion in determining which industries should be required to contribute towards workers’ compensation funds without clear guidelines or standards.