The U.S. Supreme Court case Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Ynchausti & Company et al., 1919, involved a dispute over the regulation of public utilities in the Philippines by its American colonial government. The Philippine Commission enacted legislation to regulate and control public services including transportation and communication companies operating within its jurisdiction, which was challenged by Ynchausti & Co., a shipping company that operated steamships between various ports in the Philippines and other countries. They argued that this law violated their rights under both the U.S Constitution's due process clause as well as provisions of an 1898 treaty between Spain and America following Spanish-American War. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Ynchausti & Co., upholding validity of such regulations on grounds that they were reasonable exercises of police power for protection of public interest; it also held these did not infrive upon any constitutional or treaty rights since neither applied directly to territories like Philippines at time.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Ynchausti & Company et al., Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to uphold a law that allowed public utility companies in New Jersey to charge higher rates than those set by state regulators. He argued that this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it effectively permitted these companies to confiscate property without just compensation. Furthermore, he contended that such an arrangement was inherently unfair and unjust because it forced consumers to pay more for services while providing no additional benefits or improvements in return. Therefore, he believed that this law should be struck down as unconstitutional.