Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company v. Finzer was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1929. The case involved a dispute between the tobacco company and a tobacco farmer, Finzer, over the price of tobacco. Finzer had contracted with the tobacco company to sell his tobacco at a certain price, but the company refused to pay the agreed-upon price. Finzer sued the company for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the tobacco company was liable for breach of contract, and that Finzer was entitled to the agreed-upon price. The Court also held that the tobacco company had acted in bad faith by refusing to pay the agreed-upon price, and that Finzer was entitled to damages for the company's breach of contract. The Court also held that the tobacco company was liable for punitive damages, as the company had acted in a manner that was oppressive and malicious. The decision in this case was significant, as it established that tobacco companies could be held liable for breach of contract and for punitive damages. This decision also established that tobacco companies could not use their market power to take advantage of farmers and other suppliers. This case was an important step in the regulation of the tobacco industry, and it set a precedent for future cases involving the tobacco industry.

In the dissenting opinion of Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company v. Finzer, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to consider whether or not a state law could be applied to an interstate commerce issue. He noted that Congress had already passed legislation which gave states authority over certain matters related to intrastate commerce, but did not give them any power over interstate commerce issues. Therefore, he believed that the court should have considered this before ruling on the case and concluded that state laws were inapplicable in this situation. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states to regulate interstate commerce would lead to chaos as each state could impose its own rules on businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. Ultimately, Justice Black felt strongly about protecting federalism by ensuring there is no overlap between federal and state powers when it comes to regulating business activities within their respective borders.