In Tigner v. Texas, 1939, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state law which allowed for price-fixing of agricultural products did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was brought forward by E.C. Tigner who had been convicted under a Texas statute for selling chickens at less than minimum prices set by an Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee. He argued that this violated his rights as it treated poultry farmers differently from other livestock producers who were not subject to such regulations. However, the court held that states have broad powers in regulating economic activities within their borders and can treat different classes of businesses differently if there is a rational basis for doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for Tigner v. Texas, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law regulating agricultural production was inconsistent with previous rulings striking down similar federal laws. He believed that both types of laws were equally unconstitutional as they violated individuals' rights to contract and trade freely. Furthermore, he contended that such regulations could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by giving too much power to administrative bodies without sufficient legislative guidance or judicial review. In his view, this case represented an unwarranted expansion of government power at the expense of individual liberties protected under the Constitution.