The Supreme Court case Hill, Jr., et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., 1921 revolved around the constitutionality of the Future Trading Act (FTA) enacted by Congress in 1921 to regulate grain futures and impose a tax on contracts for future delivery unless they were made through designated contract markets that complied with federal regulations. The plaintiffs argued that this act was unconstitutional as it interfered with their right to conduct business freely and imposed an unjust tax. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while ordinarily such interference would be unconstitutional under normal circumstances; however, due to World War I causing unusual conditions which affected public interest adversely - particularly in relation to wheat prices - it was necessary for Congress to intervene and regulate these transactions via FTA. Therefore, despite being restrictive towards individual rights under normal circumstances; given the exceptional situation at hand during wartime where national interests were at stake – regulation became essential thus making FTA constitutional.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hill, Jr., et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., argued that the Future Trading Act was unconstitutional as it imposed a tax on contracts for future delivery of grain unless they were made through members of designated contract markets or exchanges. The dissenters believed this to be an improper use of Congress's taxing power and instead viewed it as a regulatory measure aimed at controlling speculative trading practices which fell outside federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. They contended that such regulation should be left to individual states rather than being federally mandated. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential infringement upon personal liberty and property rights without due process by imposing penalties for non-compliance with regulations set forth by these designated market bodies.