Smith Middlings Purifier Company v. McGroarty was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1936. The case involved a dispute between Smith Middlings Purifier Company and McGroarty, a former employee of the company. McGroarty had been employed by Smith Middlings Purifier Company for several years and had been promised a bonus if he stayed with the company for a certain period of time. However, when McGroarty left the company, he was not given the bonus he was promised. McGroarty sued Smith Middlings Purifier Company for breach of contract, claiming that the company had failed to fulfill its promise to pay him the bonus. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McGroarty, finding that the company had indeed breached its contract with McGroarty. The Court held that the company was liable for damages to McGroarty for the breach of contract. The case of Smith Middlings Purifier Company v. McGroarty is an important case in contract law, as it established the principle that a company must fulfill its contractual obligations to its employees. The case also serves as a reminder that companies must be held accountable for their promises and that employees should not be taken advantage of.

In Smith Middlings Purifier Company v. McGroarty, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a dissenting opinion in which Justice Douglas argued that Congress had not intended to limit state taxation powers when it passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). He noted that while some parts of the AAA did restrict states’ ability to tax certain agricultural products, those restrictions were limited and specific. Furthermore, he argued that even if Congress had intended for its legislation to preempt state taxation power more broadly, this would be unconstitutional because only Congress has authority over interstate commerce. Therefore, Justice Douglas concluded that there was no basis for finding preemption in this case and urged his colleagues on the court to reverse their decision and allow Pennsylvania’s tax law to stand as constitutional.