The U.S. Supreme Court case Arkansas Corporation Commission et al. v. Thompson, Trustee (1940) revolved around the issue of whether or not a state could regulate interstate commerce in regards to natural gas distribution and pricing within its borders. The Arkansas Corporation Commission had set rates for the sale of natural gas by an interstate pipeline company operating within the state, which was challenged by Thompson, a trustee for bondholders of that company who argued this violated federal law governing such matters as it interfered with interstate commerce regulation - a power reserved exclusively for Congress under the Commerce Clause of Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while states do have some authority over local aspects of interstate commerce when there is no conflicting federal legislation, they cannot interfere with rate-setting practices because these directly affect transactions occurring across state lines and are thus part of 'interstate' rather than 'intrastate' trade or business operations. Therefore, any attempt by a state to control prices in such cases would be unconstitutional as it infringes upon powers granted solely to Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause). This decision reinforced principles limiting states’ ability to regulate certain aspects related to Interstate Commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas Corporation Commission et al. v. Thompson, Trustee, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of federalism and states' rights. He contended that it was not within the purview of federal courts to interfere with state regulatory agencies in their execution of duties as prescribed by state law unless there is clear conflict with federal laws or constitution. The justice believed that this case did not present such a conflict and hence should have been left to be resolved by state authorities without interference from federal judiciary. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications on future cases involving similar issues between corporations and public utilities commissions if this precedent were allowed to stand.