In the 1932 case of Louis K. Liggett Co. et al. v. Lee, Comptroller, et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Florida law that imposed higher license fees on chain stores than individual ones violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs were owners and operators of chain stores who argued that this law unfairly discriminated against them in favor of independent store owners, thereby violating their constitutional rights to equal protection under laws. The court ruled by a 5-4 majority that there was no violation as states have broad powers to enact tax legislation for economic regulation or welfare purposes unless it is clearly arbitrary or discriminatory without any reasonable basis; they found such basis existed here due to differences between chains and independent businesses regarding competition and market control. This decision upheld state's power over local economic regulations within its jurisdiction but also highlighted potential tensions between federal constitutional protections and state regulatory authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Louis K. Liggett Co. et al. v. Lee, Comptroller, et al., Justice Brandeis argued that Florida's Chain Store Tax Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was a legitimate exercise of state power to regulate businesses within its jurisdiction and promote local economic interests against potential monopolies or unfair competition from large chain stores like Liggett’s drugstores. He contended that states have wide discretion in taxation matters and can differentiate between types of businesses based on their size or structure if they believe such differentiation serves public interest or welfare; this includes protecting small independent retailers from larger chains which may drive them out of business due to economies scale advantages they possess over smaller competitors.