In the case of Paul, Director of Agriculture of California, et al. v. United States in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between federal and state powers regarding agricultural marketing orders. The State of California had issued its own marketing order for peaches that conflicted with an existing federal order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA). The U.S Department of Agriculture sought to enjoin enforcement by California officials arguing that their actions were pre-empted by federal law. In response, California contended that it was not preempted because Congress did not explicitly say so in AMAA and also claimed sovereign immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court held against both arguments put forth by California; ruling firstly that although there is no explicit provision within AMAA stating preemption over state regulations conflicting with its orders, such intent could be inferred from other provisions which showed clear purpose to establish uniform national standards for certain agricultural commodities including peaches. Secondly concerning sovereign immunity claim made by Californian officials based on Eleventh Amendment protection against suits brought up in Federal courts without consent; court clarified this does not apply when officers are acting unconstitutionally or beyond their statutory authority as they were here trying to enforce a regulation superseded by Federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Paul, Director of Agriculture of California, et al. v. United States (1962), it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold federal authority over state regulations in relation to agricultural marketing orders was incorrect and an overreach of power. The dissenters believed that states should have jurisdiction over their own agricultural affairs without interference from the federal government unless there is a clear conflict between state and federal law which could not be resolved through any other means. They contended that this case did not present such a conflict as both California’s prorate program and Federal Marketing Order were designed with similar objectives - stabilizing market conditions and ensuring fair returns for farmers - hence they can coexist harmoniously without one superseding another. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications on states' rights if such broad interpretation of supremacy clause continues unchecked.