In the case of Harris v. South Carolina in 1948, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring all cotton to be baled in a standard size and weight was unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Harris, argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process of law and denying him equal protection under the laws. He claimed it interfered with interstate commerce as he could not sell his uniquely sized cotton bales out-of-state where such restrictions did not exist. The court agreed with Harris's argument stating that while states have power to regulate local matters affecting health, safety or welfare within their borders (police powers), they cannot use these powers to burden interstate commerce disproportionately which is protected by federal jurisdiction according to Commerce Clause of US Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Harris v. South Carolina, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to overturn a state court ruling based on its interpretation of local law was inappropriate and overstepped federal jurisdiction. He contended that it is not within the Supreme Court's purview to interpret or correct interpretations of state laws unless they infringe upon constitutional rights, which he did not believe occurred in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could interfere with states' legal processes without clear constitutional violations being present. According to him, such interference undermines principles of federalism and respect for states' sovereignty in managing their own judicial affairs.