In the 1942 case Parker, Director of Agriculture, et al. v. Brown, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a California state program that regulated and restricted the marketing of raisins produced in the state. The court ruled that such regulation did not violate antitrust laws or infringe upon interstate commerce rights because it was enacted to protect growers from unstable market conditions and price fluctuations caused by overproduction. The decision affirmed states' authority to regulate their own agricultural industries for public benefit without federal interference under certain circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Parker v. Brown, Justice Owen Roberts argued that the Agricultural Prorate Act of California was unconstitutional as it violated both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that by allowing a group of private raisin producers to control production and prices, this act essentially sanctioned monopolistic practices which were in direct violation with federal antitrust laws designed to promote competition and protect consumers from predatory business practices. Furthermore, he believed that such regulation infringed upon individual rights protected under due process clause because it deprived growers who did not comply with imposed restrictions their property without just compensation or legal recourse. Thus, according to Justice Roberts' perspective, state's attempt at economic stabilization through price-fixing schemes should not supersede fundamental principles of free market economy or constitutional protections afforded to individuals.