In the case of Cooney, Governor, et al. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 1934, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation between the state of Montana and Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company. The company argued that it was being unfairly taxed by Montana's gross receipts tax law as it applied to interstate commerce operations conducted within its borders. The court ruled in favor of Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company stating that while states have power to levy taxes on businesses operating within their jurisdiction, they cannot do so in a way that burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce which is protected under federal law (the Commerce Clause). This ruling reinforced the principle known as "dormant" or "negative" Commerce Clause jurisprudence - where even if Congress has not explicitly legislated on an issue related to interstate commerce, states are still prohibited from passing laws that unduly burden such commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cooney, Governor, et al. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., argued that the majority's decision to strike down a Montana law requiring telephone companies to share their lines with competitors was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this regulation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of these companies as it was within state power to regulate public utilities for common use and benefit. They contended that such laws were necessary for ensuring fair competition and preventing monopolies from dominating essential services like telecommunication. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "due process," arguing instead that due process should be understood more broadly than just protection against arbitrary government action; it should also include considerations about economic fairness and social justice.