In the 1928 case of Roschen v. Ward, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York Attorney General Albert Ottinger and other defendants, upholding a state law that prohibited out-of-state manufacturers from selling eyeglasses directly to consumers without first obtaining a license from the state. The plaintiff, an Illinois-based manufacturer named Charles Roschen, argued that this requirement violated his rights under both the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause since it discriminated against non-resident businesses by imposing additional burdens on them not faced by resident businesses. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court (with one justice not participating), rejected these arguments stating that states have broad power to regulate business practices within their borders as long as they do so in a manner consistent with public health or safety concerns.

In the dissenting opinion for Roschen v. Ward, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting out-of-state businesses from selling eyeglasses without a physical presence in the state violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly discriminated against interstate commerce by giving an advantage to local businesses over their out-of-state competitors. They contended that such protectionist measures were not within a state's power and should be struck down as unconstitutional interference with free trade among states. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that public health concerns justified this restriction on commerce, arguing instead that there was no evidence showing non-resident opticians posed any greater risk than resident ones.