In the case of Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a North Carolina law was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against Washington state apple growers and dealers. The North Carolina statute required all closed containers of apples sold or shipped into the state to display no grade other than applicable U.S. grades or standards, effectively prohibiting information about superior Washington State grading standards on apple containers from being displayed in North Carolina markets. This hindered interstate commerce as it disadvantaged out-of-state producers who had higher quality products but were unable to market them as such within North Carolina's borders due to this regulation. The court held that while states have broad power under their police powers to regulate matters of health and safety for its citizens, they cannot use these powers in a way that discriminates against interstate commerce without justification.

In the dissenting opinion for Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, Justice Rehnquist argued that North Carolina's apple grading law was not discriminatory against interstate commerce and should be upheld. He contended that the majority misinterpreted previous cases regarding discrimination in favor of local products, asserting that these cases did not establish a per se rule against such laws but rather required a balancing test to determine whether they were justified by legitimate state interests. In this case, he believed North Carolina had valid reasons for its law: ensuring consumers received accurate information about apple quality and preventing fraud. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Washington apples were disadvantaged by being forced to use USDA grades instead of their own superior ones; instead, he saw it as leveling the playing field between states with different grading systems.