The U.S. Supreme Court case Caldwell, as Attorney General for the State of South Dakota and ex officio member of the State Securities Commission of the State of South Dakota, et al. v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Company et al., 1916 revolved around a dispute over state regulation versus federal jurisdiction in relation to stockyards operations. The Sioux Falls Stock Yards Company was charged with violating state law by charging excessive rates for its services; however, they argued that their business fell under interstate commerce and thus should be regulated federally rather than at a state level. The court ruled in favor of Caldwell (representing South Dakota), asserting that while some aspects were indeed part of interstate commerce, many activities such as feeding and caring for livestock were local matters subject to state control.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Caldwell, as Attorney General for the State of South Dakota and ex officio member of the State Securities Commission of the State of South Dakota, et al. v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Company et al., argued that state regulation over stockyards was not unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. The dissenters believed that because livestock sales at these yards were a local activity, they fell within states' rights to regulate business practices within their borders. They disagreed with majority's view that such transactions constituted interstate commerce simply because some animals were transported across state lines before or after sale. In their view, this interpretation stretched too far the definition and scope of federal jurisdiction under Commerce Clause.