In the case of Miller v. McLaughlin, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture of Nebraska et al., 1929, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over agricultural regulations in Nebraska. The plaintiff, Miller, was an owner and operator of a grain elevator who challenged state laws that regulated his business operations including setting maximum rates for services and requiring certain financial guarantees to protect farmers' interests. He argued these laws violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause by depriving him property without just compensation or fair procedure. However, the Supreme Court upheld Nebraska's regulatory scheme as a valid exercise of its police powers to protect public welfare and economic stability within its borders against unfair trade practices or monopolistic tendencies in grain storage industry. The court found no violation on part with respect to either procedural or substantive aspects under due process clause since such regulation did not amount to taking private property for public use without adequate compensation nor it denied any fundamental fairness in legal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller v. McLaughlin, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Nebraska law prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter infringed upon individual rights and exceeded state police power. The dissenting justices contended that there was no legitimate public health or safety concern justifying such regulation, as both products were equally wholesome and nutritious. They maintained that this legislation served only to protect one industry at the expense of another, which they believed fell outside the scope of permissible government intervention in commerce. Furthermore, they asserted that consumers should have freedom of choice between these two similar goods without interference from biased laws favoring one over another.