The case of North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc., 1973 revolved around a North Dakota law that required all pharmacies to be majority-owned by registered pharmacists. The law was challenged by Snyder's Drug Stores, a Minnesota-based corporation that wanted to own and operate pharmacies in North Dakota but could not meet the ownership requirement because it was not pharmacist-led. The U.S Supreme Court upheld the state law, ruling against Snyder’s Drug Stores. It found that states have broad power under their police powers to regulate businesses for preserving public health and safety; this includes setting standards for professional responsibility in pharmacy operations. Therefore, requiring majority ownership by pharmacists did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as argued by Snyder’s Drug Store.

In the dissenting opinion for North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc., Justice Douglas argued that the majority decision was a violation of the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause. He contended that there was no rational basis for distinguishing between in-state and out-of-state corporations when it came to owning pharmacies in North Dakota. The law, he believed, served only to protect local pharmacists from competition rather than promoting any legitimate state interest such as public health or safety. Furthermore, Douglas pointed out that other states had successfully regulated pharmacy practices without resorting to discriminatory ownership laws like those in North Dakota. Therefore, he concluded that these laws were not necessary for maintaining high standards within the profession but were instead protectionist measures designed to favor local businesses at the expense of interstate commerce.