The case of New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 1978, revolved around the issue of whether a state statute that allowed an existing car dealer to protest the establishment or relocation of another dealership within its relevant market area violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that it did not violate these clauses as long as there was no unreasonable delay in processing protests and granting licenses for new dealerships. The court found that such statutes served legitimate state interests by preventing unfair competition and fostering consumer protection, thus they were constitutional under rational basis review.

In the dissenting opinion for New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Orrin W. Fox Co., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow a state agency to delay the opening of a new automobile dealership while it reviewed protests from existing dealerships was an overreach and violated principles of federalism. He contended that this ruling interfered with states' rights to regulate their own economic affairs, particularly in areas where there is no explicit federal policy or law in place. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of antitrust laws as prohibiting such delays, arguing instead that these laws were designed primarily to prevent monopolies and promote competition rather than dictate specific business practices within individual states.