The U.S. Supreme Court case Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., et al. v. Paul, Director of the Department of Agriculture of California, et al., 1962 revolved around a conflict between federal and state regulations regarding the marketing standards for avocados. The Florida growers challenged a California law that prohibited selling avocados with less than 8% oil content as it conflicted with their compliance to federal laws which allowed them to sell avocados with lower oil content levels in interstate commerce. They argued this was an undue burden on interstate commerce and violated their rights under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, the court ruled in favor of California's regulation stating that there was no direct conflict between state and federal laws because they regulated different aspects - one focused on maturity (federal) while other on quality (state). Furthermore, it held that states have power to establish higher standards if they are not inconsistent or contradictory to federal regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, it was argued that California's regulation of avocado maturity standards did not conflict with federal law and should therefore be upheld. The dissenting justices believed that both state and federal regulations could coexist as they served different purposes: the former ensured consumers received mature avocados while the latter prevented deceptive practices in commerce. They contended that there was no evidence to suggest Congress intended to preempt state laws when enacting its own legislation on avocado maturity standards; rather, it sought only to supplement them where necessary or beneficial for interstate commerce. Furthermore, they maintained that if any conflicts arose between these two sets of rules due to differing testing methods or other factors, such issues should be resolved through administrative cooperation rather than judicial intervention.