The National Prohibition Cases, including the State of Rhode Island v. A. Mitchell Palmer and Daniel C. Roper, were a series of lawsuits in 1919 challenging the constitutionality of the Volstead Act which provided for enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment to prohibit alcohol manufacture, sale or transportation within, import into or export from United States territory. The plaintiffs argued that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority by passing such legislation and that it violated states' rights under the Tenth Amendment. However, in a unanimous decision led by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White Jr., the Supreme Court upheld both amendment and act as valid exercises of federal power under Section 2's grant to "concurrent power" to enforce prohibition through "appropriate legislation." The court also rejected arguments about violation of state sovereignty since no state can exercise powers reserved exclusively for federal government like regulating interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for the National Prohibition Cases, Justice McReynolds argued that the 18th Amendment was unconstitutional because it violated states' rights to regulate their own internal affairs. He believed that prohibition was a matter of local concern and should be left up to individual states rather than being federally mandated. Furthermore, he contended that by allowing Congress to enforce prohibition through appropriate legislation, the amendment gave too much power to Congress and upset the balance between federal and state governments established by the Constitution. In his view, this overreach could set a dangerous precedent for future amendments and laws.