In the 1908 case of Murray, McSween, and Patton v. Wilson Distilling Company, the State Dispensary Commission of South Carolina was in dispute with a distillery company over alcohol distribution rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the state's dispensary commission had no right to seize alcoholic beverages imported into South Carolina for personal use under a law prohibiting importation except by state dispensaries. This decision upheld an individual’s right to purchase liquor from out-of-state sellers for their own consumption against states’ attempts at monopoly control over alcohol sales within their borders through government-run dispensaries. The court held that such laws violated both due process and commerce clause protections as they interfered with interstate commerce by discriminating against out-of-state businesses.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Murray, McSween, and Patton v. Wilson Distilling Company argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law. The justices contended that South Carolina had every right to control and regulate liquor sales within its borders as part of its police powers. They believed this power included the ability to establish a state dispensary system for selling alcohol, even if it meant excluding out-of-state businesses from participating in these sales directly or indirectly. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of interstate commerce regulations; arguing instead that once goods have reached their destination state and are no longer part of interstate commerce flow, they become subject to local laws - including those regulating alcohol sale and distribution.