The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. et al. v. Grosjean, Supervisor of Public Accounts, et al., 1936 is a U.S Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of discriminatory taxation on chain stores in Louisiana. The state had imposed higher taxes on chain stores than single-location businesses, arguing that chains had an unfair advantage due to their size and purchasing power. However, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P), one of the largest grocery store chains at the time, challenged this law as unconstitutional under both Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of A&P stating that while states have broad powers to tax for revenue purposes or regulate commerce within their borders they cannot use these powers to discriminate against interstate commerce or certain types/classifications of companies without reasonable basis related directly to business done within state limits. This ruling was significant because it set a precedent limiting states' ability to impose discriminatory taxes on large corporations operating across multiple jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean, Justice Cardozo argued that the Louisiana tax law in question did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was a legitimate exercise of state power to regulate business within its borders. He contended that there was no arbitrary discrimination since all chain stores were taxed at higher rates than independent retailers due to their inherent advantages and potential threats they posed to local economies. The justice also emphasized that states should have broad discretion in taxation matters and courts should refrain from interfering unless clear violations are present, which he believed wasn't evident in this case.