In the case of Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a Wisconsin statute that restricted truck size and weight for highway safety reasons. The plaintiffs, including Raymond Motor Transportation and other interstate motor carriers, argued that this law was unconstitutional as it placed an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. The state defended its regulation citing public safety concerns. The Supreme Court held that while states have significant leeway to regulate local aspects related to road use such as traffic lights or speed limits under their police powers, they cannot unduly burden interstate commerce with regulations unless there is compelling evidence demonstrating these restrictions are necessary for public safety purposes. In this case, Wisconsin failed to provide sufficient justification showing how its truck size and weight limitations significantly contributed towards enhancing highway safety beyond what federal standards already ensured; thus making them unnecessarily burdensome on interstate trade activities. Therefore, by applying a balancing test between state's interest in promoting highway safety against potential disruption caused to national uniformity in commercial regulations due to diverse state laws - court struck down Wisconsin’s restrictive statute as unconstitutional interference with Interstate Commerce clause rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by substituting its judgment for that of Wisconsin's Department of Transportation. He believed that it was not within the Court's purview to determine whether or not a state regulation is wise or unwise, necessary or unnecessary; rather, their role should be limited to determining if such regulations are constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause. In his view, since there was no clear evidence showing that Wisconsin’s truck size and weight limitations were enacted with protectionist intent nor did they discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce - two conditions which would render them unconstitutional - they should have been upheld as valid exercises of state power.