In the 1937 case of Mahoney, Liquor Control Commissioner, et al. v. Joseph Triner Corp., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of state control over alcohol regulation and distribution within its borders. The court upheld a Connecticut law that prohibited out-of-state manufacturers from shipping liquor directly to consumers in the state without going through local wholesalers or retailers first. The Joseph Triner Corporation, an Illinois-based manufacturer and distributor of alcoholic beverages, challenged this law arguing it violated their rights under both the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce while favoring intrastate business operations. However, the court rejected these claims stating that states have broad powers under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate importation or use of intoxicating liquors within their boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Mahoney, Liquor Control Commissioner, et al. v. Joseph Triner Corp., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that upheld a Connecticut law prohibiting out-of-state liquor manufacturers from advertising their products in state newspapers or on billboards within the state. He argued that this law violated both interstate commerce and freedom of speech protections under the Constitution. The justice believed that states should not have such broad power to regulate commercial activity crossing their borders, especially when it comes to lawful goods like alcohol which are subject to federal regulation as well as individual rights protected by First Amendment freedoms of expression and press. In his view, upholding this statute would set a dangerous precedent allowing states too much control over national economic activities and personal liberties.