The U.S. Supreme Court case Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al., 1922, revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate rates charged by an interstate communication company for intrastate services without violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company was an interstate telecommunication provider that operated in multiple states including Louisiana where it provided both inter- and intra-state services. The Louisiana Public Service Commission sought to regulate rates charged by Cumberland for its intrastate services within Louisiana, which led to this dispute. Cumberland argued that such regulation would interfere with its ability to provide efficient interstate service as mandated under federal law, thereby infringing on Congress's power over interstate commerce granted by the Commerce Clause. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Cumberland stating that while Congress has exclusive authority over regulating interstate commerce, this does not prevent a state from exercising control over matters of local concern even if they incidentally affect those subjects which are national in their character (interstate commerce). Therefore, it held that states can indeed regulate rates for intrastate telephone calls made through companies also involved in providing long-distance or out-of-state call services.

In the dissenting opinion for Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that upheld a state law requiring telephone companies to provide free service to police and fire departments. He argued that this requirement was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice contended that while public utilities are subject to regulation due to their nature as quasi-public entities, such regulations should not extend so far as to allow uncompensated use of their services by government agencies. He believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent where states could impose similar requirements on other businesses or industries under the guise of serving public interest.