Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption of state law by the Sherman Act.

The Supreme Court held, in a 9–0 decision, that the Sherman Act did not invalidate a California law prohibiting the importing of spirits not authorized by the brand owner.

The California Court of Appeal for the Third District held that the statute was per se illegal under the Sherman Act and thus was invalid on its face.

This observation implies that the statute found to be lacking active state supervision in Midcal and incapable of being shielded by Parker immunity also would have been preempted by the Sherman Act, thus leading to the same result.

After referring to Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35, he elaborated as follows, 458 U.S. at 661: Addressing the statute there challenged, he referred to the holding in Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36 (1977), that a manufacturer's use of vertical non-price restraints was not per se illegal but rather should be scrutinized under the rule of reason since "restraints on intrabrand competition may promote interbrand com-petition."

He regarded the California statute as merely enforcing "the distiller's decision to restrain intraband competition", leaving him free to designate as few or as many licensed importers as he pleased.