In the case of Louis K. Liggett Company v. Baldridge, Attorney General of Pennsylvania et al., 1928, the Supreme Court examined whether a Pennsylvania law that restricted out-of-state corporations from operating drug stores within its borders was constitutional. The plaintiff, Louis K. Liggett Co., an out-of-state corporation running a chain of drugstores in multiple states including Pennsylvania, argued that this law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as interfering with interstate commerce. The court ruled against Louis K. Liggett Co., upholding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's statute on two grounds: first, it did not violate due process because it was within state power to regulate businesses for public welfare; secondly, it did not infringe upon equal protection rights since all non-resident corporations were treated equally under this law. Furthermore, regarding interference with interstate commerce - while acknowledging some impact - they found no direct burden imposed by this legislation on such trade or business across state lines which would render it unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Louis K. Liggett Company v. Baldridge, Justice Stone argued that Pennsylvania's law prohibiting corporations from owning and operating retail drug stores was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that there was no rational basis for distinguishing between corporate-owned and individually owned pharmacies in terms of public health or safety concerns, which were cited as justifications for the law by its proponents. Furthermore, he believed that this legislation unfairly targeted out-of-state corporations while favorably treating local businesses, thus violating principles of interstate commerce protection under federal law.