The Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission case in 1937 revolved around the constitutionality of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which aimed to regulate interstate public utility holding companies that were engaged in commerce among states or with foreign nations. The plaintiffs, including Electric Bond and Share Company, argued that this act was unconstitutional as it violated their rights under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S Constitution. However, after a thorough review, the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of this law by a majority vote stating that Congress had authority to control these activities due to their direct effect on interstate commerce. The court also ruled against claims regarding violation of due process rights asserting that there was no deprivation without proper justification or procedure.

In the dissenting opinion for Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Justice McReynolds argued that the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by allowing federal regulation of intrastate commerce activities, which should be state-regulated according to him. He contended that Congress overstepped its authority in passing this act because it did not merely regulate interstate commerce but also extended into areas traditionally controlled by states such as local utilities operations. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's broad interpretation of what constitutes a public interest or convenience affected by these utility companies' actions and warned against potential abuses from an overly expansive view on regulatory power.