The U.S. Supreme Court case Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission et al., 1938, revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate interstate commerce by prohibiting direct shipments of beer to consumers from out-of-state breweries while allowing in-state breweries to do so. The plaintiff, Indianapolis Brewing Company, an Indiana-based brewery, challenged Michigan's law that allowed only in-state brewers to ship directly to consumers within its borders on grounds that it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution which gives Congress power over interstate commerce. The Supreme Court upheld Michigan's law stating that although it did affect interstate commerce indirectly, its primary purpose was not economic protectionism but rather regulation and control of liquor distribution within state boundaries for public health and safety reasons - a legitimate exercise of police powers reserved for states under the 21st Amendment (which repealed Prohibition). Therefore, this indirect impact on interstate trade was deemed incidental and permissible.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission argued that the state's power to regulate alcohol did not extend to prohibiting out-of-state brewers from advertising their products within its borders, as this constituted a violation of the Commerce Clause. The justice contended that while states have broad powers under the 21st Amendment to control liquor distribution and use within their boundaries, these powers do not supersede or nullify constitutional protections for interstate commerce. Therefore, it was asserted that Michigan’s law banning out-of-state beer advertisements unfairly discriminated against interstate commerce by favoring local businesses over those from other states.