The Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer Works case in 1933 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between two parties, specifically regarding the payment for phosphate rock delivered by Sanders to Armour Fertilizer Works. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not an "Act of God" clause within their agreement could be invoked due to heavy rainfall that affected the delivery and quality of the product. The court ruled in favor of Sanders, stating that while it is true that acts of nature can sometimes absolve contractual obligations, this particular situation did not qualify as such because both parties were aware at signing time about potential weather-related issues affecting deliveries and had made no specific provisions for them in their contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer Works, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a state law to regulate interstate commerce contradicted previous rulings of the Court. The dissenting justices believed that this case involved an issue of federal jurisdiction and should not be subject to state regulation. They contended that allowing states to impose their own regulations on interstate commerce would lead to inconsistencies and potential conflicts between different jurisdictions, undermining the uniformity necessary for effective national economic policy. Furthermore, they expressed concern about protecting individual rights from potentially oppressive local legislation.