In the case of North Carolina et al. v. United States et al., 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce over state rights. The dispute arose when North Carolina imposed a tax on liquors transported into or through its territory from other states, which was challenged by liquor companies as an infringement on their business operations and violation of the Commerce Clause in U.S Constitution that grants Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. The court held that while states have authority to control alcohol within their borders under the 21st Amendment, it does not supersede federal jurisdiction over interstate trade established by Article I Section 8 of Constitution (Commerce Clause). Therefore, any state law conflicting with this principle is invalid.

In the dissenting opinion for North Carolina et al. v. United States et al., Justice Owen Roberts disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold federal price controls on intrastate liquor sales during World War II, arguing that it was an overreach of federal power into state affairs. He contended that while Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause, those powers do not extend to regulating prices within a single state's borders unless there is a clear and direct impact on interstate commerce. In this case, he did not believe such an impact existed as each state had its own system for controlling liquor prices and distribution which were primarily local activities without significant effect on other states' markets or overall national economy. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such expansive interpretation of federal authority could lead to potential abuses where Congress might use war emergencies as pretext to regulate purely local matters in future.