In the case of Alabama et al. v. United States et al., 1930, the state of Alabama and other southern states challenged a federal law that regulated the production and distribution of natural gas across state lines. The states argued that this was an infringement on their rights to regulate commerce within their own borders, as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while states have broad powers under the Tenth Amendment, these do not extend to areas where Congress has chosen to act pursuant to its constitutional authority over interstate commerce. Therefore it upheld federal regulation over natural gas arguing it is part of interstate commerce which falls under Federal jurisdiction according to U.S constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8). This ruling reinforced federal power over matters involving cross-state business activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Alabama et al. v. United States et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws was a violation of states' rights and an overreach of federal power. He contended that such injunctions should only be issued in cases where there is no adequate remedy at law, which he did not believe was true in this case as individuals could challenge the constitutionality of state laws through their own lawsuits or defenses against enforcement actions. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse if federal courts were given too much discretion to interfere with state affairs, arguing it could lead to unnecessary conflict between different levels of government and undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.