In the 1916 case Hutchinson Ice Cream Company et al. v. State of Iowa, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state regulation of food products and interstate commerce. The Hutchinson Ice Cream Company, along with other plaintiffs, challenged an Iowa law that prohibited the sale of ice cream containing less than 12% butterfat within the state's borders. They argued this violated their rights under both federal commerce laws and equal protection provisions in the Constitution because it effectively barred them from selling their product in Iowa while allowing out-of-state companies to do so freely if they met certain requirements. The court upheld the law as constitutional, ruling that states have broad powers to regulate food safety and quality within their own borders even when such regulations affect interstate trade. It found no violation of equal protection since all businesses were treated equally under this law - those who complied could sell ice cream in Iowa regardless of where they were based or incorporated.

In the dissenting opinion for Hutchinson Ice Cream Company et al. v. State of Iowa, it was argued that the state law requiring all ice cream to contain at least 12% butterfat was arbitrary and unreasonable, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The justice contended that there was no scientific consensus on what constituted "ice cream," making such a specific requirement unjustifiable. Furthermore, he pointed out that other states had different standards for ice cream content which did not necessarily align with Iowa’s standard - some required less butterfat while others didn't specify any percentage at all - suggesting this indicated an absence of a universal understanding or agreement about what constitutes 'real' ice cream. He also noted that consumers were capable of judging quality based on taste rather than relying solely on government regulations to determine product value and quality.