The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. Cottrell case in 1975 was a dispute over the constitutionality of Mississippi's milk pricing and licensing regulations, which were challenged by The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P). A&P argued that these laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution because they favored local dairy farmers at the expense of out-of-state producers. However, the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's regulations, ruling that they did not violate either clause. The court found that while these laws may have had some impact on interstate commerce, their primary purpose was to promote public health and welfare within Mississippi by ensuring an adequate supply of fresh milk for its residents - a legitimate state interest under both clauses.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. Cottrell, it was argued that Mississippi's milk pricing regulation did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution as claimed by A&P. The justice believed that states should have a right to regulate their own economic affairs and protect local industries without interference from federal courts unless there is clear discrimination against interstate commerce or an undue burden placed on it, neither of which he saw in this case. He also pointed out that similar regulations had been upheld in other cases and expressed concern about inconsistency in court rulings regarding state regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view that Mississippi's law was protectionist because its primary purpose was to ensure stable supply of fresh milk for residents rather than favoring local producers over those from outside states.