The case of Hebert et al. v. Louisiana in 1926 revolved around the issue of whether a state law that prohibited the sale and transportation of alcohol violated the U.S Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. The plaintiffs, Hebert and others, were convicted under this state law for transporting liquor from Texas into Louisiana with intent to sell it there. They argued that since their actions involved interstate commerce, only federal laws could apply - not state ones. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them by upholding their convictions and affirming that states have concurrent power with Congress over certain aspects of interstate commerce when protection of public health or safety is at stake (as was deemed to be true in this instance). This decision reinforced states' rights within our federal system while also acknowledging limits on those rights imposed by national interests as embodied in constitutional provisions like the Commerce Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Hebert et al. v. Louisiana, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, argued that the state of Louisiana had no jurisdiction to prosecute a crime committed on federal property (a post office). They contended that under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S Constitution, which grants Congress exclusive legislative authority over places purchased by consent of the legislature in which they are situated for forts or other needful buildings; it was clear that crimes committed on such properties should be prosecuted federally rather than at state level. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation was consistent with previous court rulings and warned against allowing states to interfere with federal jurisdiction in such matters.