The U.S. Supreme Court case Kotch et al. v. Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans et al., 1946, dealt with allegations that Louisiana's system for appointing river pilots was discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that they were denied pilot licenses because they weren't related to current or former pilots, which constituted a form of nepotism favoring certain families over others based on their connections rather than merit or qualifications. However, in a 5-4 decision, the court upheld Louisiana's licensing process as constitutional despite its apparent bias towards relatives of existing pilots. The majority opinion held that while such preferences might be unfair from an economic standpoint, it did not constitute discrimination under equal protection laws since there was no racial or religious prejudice involved. This ruling has been criticized by legal scholars who argue it allows states too much leeway in determining what constitutes "equal" treatment under law and could potentially open doors to other forms of non-racial/religious discrimination being deemed acceptable.

In the dissenting opinion for Kotch et al. v. Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners, Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law that effectively limited river pilot licenses to relatives and close associates of existing pilots. He argued that this practice was discriminatory and violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because it favored a specific group based on personal relationships rather than merit or qualifications. Furthermore, he contended that such nepotism undermined public trust in government institutions by creating an appearance of corruption and favoritism. Justice Jackson also criticized his colleagues' interpretation of previous case law, arguing they had misapplied precedents related to economic regulation in order to justify their ruling.