In the case of Savage v. Jones, State Chemist of the State of Indiana (1911), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state regulation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Mr. Savage, was an Illinois-based manufacturer who sold stock food in Indiana that did not meet its labeling standards for chemical content as set by their state chemist, Mr. Jones. He argued that this violated his rights under the Commerce Clause because it interfered with interstate trade. The court held that while states cannot directly regulate commerce between states - which is a power reserved to Congress - they can indirectly influence it through valid exercises of their police powers intended to protect health and safety or prevent fraud within their borders; provided such laws do not conflict with federal law or unreasonably burden interstate commerce. Therefore, since Indiana's law was designed to prevent deception about what products contained rather than restrict out-of-state goods per se and there were no conflicting federal regulations at issue here; it was upheld as constitutional despite impacting some aspects of interstate trade.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Savage v. Jones, argued that the Indiana law regulating commercial fertilizers was unconstitutional as it violated the Commerce Clause by interfering with interstate commerce. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that states have broad powers to regulate products for health and safety reasons, arguing instead that such regulations should be limited to prevent undue burdens on interstate trade. They contended that this law did not merely protect consumers from fraud but imposed arbitrary standards which could potentially exclude legitimate out-of-state businesses from selling their goods in Indiana. This, they believed, constituted a protectionist measure favoring local industries over out-of-state competitors rather than a genuine public health or consumer protection initiative.