The U.S. Supreme Court case National Fertilizer Association, Inc., et al. v. Bradley et al., 1936 revolved around the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that regulated and taxed the sale of commercial fertilizers in the state. The plaintiffs, including several fertilizer manufacturers and distributors, argued that this law violated their rights under both the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce and arbitrarily discriminating against out-of-state businesses. However, after reviewing these claims, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's regulatory scheme as constitutional. The court found no evidence to suggest that it was designed or operated in such a way as to unfairly disadvantage non-Tennessee companies or unduly interfere with interstate trade; rather it served legitimate public health and safety interests by ensuring quality control over products sold within its borders. Moreover, while acknowledging some potential for incidental impact on interstate commerce due to differences between states' regulations (which could theoretically require companies selling nationally to comply with multiple sets of rules), they held this did not rise to level constituting unconstitutional interference since there were reasonable grounds for each state having its own standards given variations in soil conditions etc.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Fertilizer Association, Inc. et al. v. Bradley et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law regulating fertilizer sales was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. The dissenters believed that states should have broad authority to regulate commerce within their borders without interference from federal courts unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights or federal laws. They contended that the Tennessee statute at issue did not infringe upon any such rights or laws but merely sought to protect consumers from fraudulent practices by requiring accurate labeling and advertising for fertilizers sold in the state. Furthermore, they asserted that it was not within the purview of courts to second-guess legislative judgments about economic policy unless those judgments were clearly irrational or arbitrary, which they did not believe was true in this case.