In the 1936 case of State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market Co., the U.S Supreme Court upheld a California law that imposed higher licensing fees on out-of-state beer importers than those charged to in-state brewers. The plaintiffs, an importer and retailer of beer, argued that this violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. However, the court ruled in favor of California’s right to regulate alcohol under its police power as granted by Section 2 (the Twenty-first Amendment) which gives states broad authority over liquor distribution within their borders. This decision established a precedent for state regulation and control over alcoholic beverages despite potential conflicts with other constitutional provisions such as equal protection or free trade among states.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market Co., Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo argued that the majority had overstepped their bounds by allowing states to regulate interstate commerce in a way that was previously deemed unconstitutional. He contended that this decision effectively reversed precedent set by previous cases without sufficient justification, and warned against such drastic changes in constitutional interpretation without compelling reasons or clear necessity. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on economic stability and fairness resulting from state-imposed discriminatory taxes on out-of-state goods, which could lead to retaliatory measures between states and disrupt national unity.