The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Claire Furnace Company et al., 1926, revolved around the issue of whether the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had jurisdiction over a corporation that was not engaged in interstate commerce but whose activities affected such commerce indirectly. The FTC issued an order against Claire Furnace Company and other corporations involved in coal production for unfair methods of competition, which they challenged on grounds that their business did not involve interstate trade directly and hence were outside FTC's purview. However, the Supreme Court upheld FTC's authority to regulate these companies' practices as it found their actions significantly impacted interstate commerce even if indirectly so due to their substantial control over coal supply affecting prices across state lines. This ruling underscored broad interpretation of federal regulatory power under Commerce Clause extending beyond direct involvement in cross-state trade.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Company case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order against Claire Furnace Company overstepped its bounds by interpreting "unfair methods of competition" too broadly under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The dissenting justices believed that this broad interpretation could potentially criminalize normal business practices and stifle healthy competition in commerce. They also expressed concern about due process rights being violated as businesses might not have clear guidance on what constitutes an "unfair method of competition." Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was evaluated in this case, arguing that there wasn't substantial proof to support claims made by FTC regarding unfair trade practices committed by Claire Furnace Company.