In the 1924 case of Hygrade Provision Company, Inc. v. Sherman, the Supreme Court ruled on a New York law that regulated the labeling and sale of kosher products. The plaintiffs were meat dealers who claimed that this law was unconstitutional as it violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by being too vague in its definition of "kosher." They argued that there were varying interpretations within Jewish communities about what constituted kosher food, making enforcement arbitrary and discriminatory. The Supreme Court disagreed with these arguments and upheld the constitutionality of New York's kosher laws. It found no vagueness or ambiguity in defining 'kosher' as prepared according to Orthodox Hebrew religious requirements because it is well understood by those whom it affects - both sellers and buyers familiar with such dietary restrictions. Therefore, they concluded that there was no violation of due process rights since businesses could reasonably understand what conduct would violate this statute.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Hygrade Provision Company, Inc. v. Sherman, Justice McReynolds argued that New York's law requiring frankfurters and bologna to be made from fresh meat was unconstitutional because it interfered with interstate commerce. He believed that this law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state producers who used preserved meats in their products, which were just as wholesome and nutritious as those made from fresh meat. Furthermore, he contended that such a regulation should not fall under state jurisdiction but rather federal oversight due to its impact on interstate trade. The justice also expressed concern about the potential for other states to enact similar laws if this one was upheld by the court, leading to an unmanageable patchwork of regulations across different jurisdictions.