In the 1923 case of Jay Burns Baking Company et al. v. Bryan, as Governor of the State of Nebraska, et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state regulation and interstate commerce. The Jay Burns Baking Company challenged a Nebraska law that required out-of-state bakeries to have an in-state office and designated representative if they wanted to sell their products within Nebraska's borders. The company argued this was unconstitutional because it interfered with interstate commerce by placing undue burdens on businesses from other states wishing to operate in Nebraska. However, the court upheld the law stating that while states cannot directly regulate or burden interstate commerce, they can indirectly influence it through legitimate exercises of police power for public health or safety reasons - such as ensuring food quality standards are met by having an in-state representative who could be held accountable.

In the dissenting opinion for Jay Burns Baking Company et al. v. Bryan, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the Nebraska law regulating bread weights did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as it was a reasonable exercise of state police power to protect consumers from fraud and deception in commercial transactions. He disagreed with the majority's view that this regulation interfered with bakers' freedom of contract or right to conduct business without unreasonable governmental interference. According to him, such regulations were necessary for public welfare and should be upheld unless they had no reasonable relation to their purpose or went beyond what was required for its achievement.