In no place is it stated that Nevada will buy from local dairies only, or place any undue restriction on the flow of interstate commerce. In 1935, Justice Cardozo delivered the opinion of the Baldwin Court, in which it held that a state may not directly burden interstate commerce, nor place itself in a position of economic isolation. However, interstate commerce may be affected incidentally as a valid exercise of its police power. On that assumption we are asked to say that intervention will be upheld as a valid exercise by the state of its internal police power, though there is an incidental obstruction to commerce between one state and another. This would be to eat up the rule under the guise of an exception.
Economic welfare is always related to health, for there can be no health if men are starving.
To give entrance to that excuse would be to invite a speedy end of our national solidarity. The Court in Hood again found that the state was attempting to unduly burden interstate commerce under the guise of its police power. New York had refused to issue a license to an existing distributor for an additional receiving depot for milk to be shipped to another state. The state's rational was that at times there had been a shortage of milk and curtailing movement of milk would ostensibly prevent any future shortages within the state. In Dean Milk Co. the Court was faced with a creative variation of the same old theme.