In the case of Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bruce Church, a company that grew and packed cantaloupes in Arizona but marketed them under a California label. The state of Arizona had passed legislation requiring all cantaloupes grown within its borders to be packaged prior to leaving the state as an effort to maintain quality control and protect its reputation for producing high-quality fruit. However, this law would have forced Bruce Church to build costly packing facilities in Arizona rather than using their existing ones in California. The court held that while states do have power over matters related to public health and safety within their jurisdiction, they cannot impose regulations on businesses which create undue burdens on interstate commerce unless there is no other means available for achieving legitimate local interests. In this case, it was determined that less restrictive alternatives were available such as inspections or certification programs which could ensure product quality without disrupting business operations significantly. Therefore, the ruling established an important precedent known as "Pike balancing test" where courts weigh a state's interest against any burden imposed on interstate commerce when evaluating whether certain laws are constitutional.

The dissenting opinion in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., held by Justice Hugo Black, argued that the Supreme Court should not have interfered with Arizona's decision to regulate its own commerce. He believed that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting and promoting its reputation for high-quality cantaloupes through packaging regulations. According to him, it was not within the purview of courts to weigh economic costs against benefits when assessing such laws; this was a matter for legislative bodies. Furthermore, he contended that states should be allowed considerable leeway in regulating their internal affairs without federal interference unless there is clear constitutional prohibition or discrimination against out-of-state goods or non-residents.