In the 1935 case of Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of California's state officials, who were sued by a lumber company for enforcing a law that regulated timber harvesting to prevent deforestation and promote reforestation. The plaintiff, Pacific States Box & Basket Company, argued that this law violated their rights under the Contract Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it interfered with existing contracts they had with private landowners to harvest timber on their lands. However, the court upheld California's right to regulate natural resources within its borders as an exercise of its police power - which is inherent in every sovereignty - even if such regulations might interfere with private contracts or economic interests. The decision affirmed states' authority to enact laws protecting public interest over individual contractual rights when necessary for conservation purposes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold California's regulation of timber harvesting was an overreach of state power, infringing upon private property rights and impeding interstate commerce. The dissent contended that while states have a legitimate interest in conserving natural resources, this should not extend to dictating how privately owned land is used or commodities are produced. They believed such regulations were more appropriately within the purview of federal law under the Commerce Clause, rather than individual state laws. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential economic harm resulting from these restrictions on timber companies' operations.