In the case of Rice, Director, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of California v. Norman Williams Co. et al., 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that a California law prohibiting out-of-state liquor producers from advertising their products in the state was unconstitutional. The court found that this law violated both the Commerce Clause and First Amendment rights to free speech. The decision emphasized that states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce or restrict commercial speech without substantial justification related to public health or safety concerns. This ruling reaffirmed previous decisions protecting commercial speech under the First Amendment and limiting state powers to regulate interstate commerce beyond what is necessary for legitimate local interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Rice v. Norman Williams Co., Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, argued that California's liquor advertising regulations were not in violation of the Commerce Clause. They contended that these regulations did not discriminate against interstate commerce but rather treated all alcoholic beverages equally regardless of their origin. The justices also disagreed with the majority's view on First Amendment rights, arguing that commercial speech should be protected only if it is truthful and pertains to lawful activity. In this case, they believed that California had a legitimate interest in regulating alcohol advertisements to promote temperance and protect public health and safety. Therefore, they concluded that such restrictions were constitutional under both the Commerce Clause and First Amendment.