In the case of Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., 1952, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a license was required from the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for hydroelectric projects constructed by public utilities on non-navigable tributaries of navigable waters in the United States. The court held that such licenses were indeed necessary under Section 23(b) of the Federal Water Power Act. This decision came about after Idaho Power Company began constructing three power plants without obtaining licenses from FPC, arguing that they weren't needed as their projects were located on non-navigable streams and thus outside federal jurisdiction. However, because these streams ultimately fed into navigable waters used for interstate commerce, it fell within federal jurisdiction according to majority opinion written by Justice Harold Burton.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold the Federal Power Commission's jurisdiction over a hydroelectric project on non-navigable waters, based on its connection to interstate commerce, expanded federal power too broadly. The dissent contended that this interpretation of the Commerce Clause could potentially allow federal control over all bodies of water in every state, regardless of their navigability or direct impact on interstate commerce. They believed such an expansion would infrive upon states' rights and upset the balance between state and federal powers established by Constitution. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications beyond water resources regulation; if any activity with even a remote effect on interstate commerce can be federally regulated under this ruling’s logic, then virtually no area of local or private life would remain outside federal reach.