In the 1945 case United States v. Rice, District Judge, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a federal district court did not have jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of an order by the War Food Administrator setting maximum prices for rough rice under Emergency Price Control Act (EPCA) of 1942. The EPCA was enacted during World War II as a measure against inflation and it gave authority to regulate prices on commodities and rents in defense areas. In this case, certain Louisiana rice millers had sought an injunction against such orders arguing they were arbitrary and capricious. However, according to Section 204(d) of EPCA, protests against regulations or orders related to price control should be made directly before Emergency Court of Appeals rather than any other court including district courts. Therefore, based on statutory interpretation principles and legislative intent behind EPCA's enactment - ensuring swift action in war emergency without delays caused by litigation - Supreme Court held that lower court lacked jurisdiction over this matter.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rice, District Judge, 1945, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal tax on state liquor sales was an overreach of federal power and violated states' rights. He contended that this case represented a dangerous expansion of federal authority into areas traditionally controlled by states under their police powers. In his view, alcohol regulation is primarily a matter of local concern and should be left to individual states to manage as they see fit without interference from the federal government. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such taxation could potentially undermine state sovereignty in other areas as well if taken to its logical conclusion. Therefore, he dissented from the majority's ruling upholding this exercise of congressional taxing power.