In the case of French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Barber Asphalt Paving Company. The dispute arose when French claimed that a patent he owned was infringed upon by Barber's use of wooden blocks for paving streets. However, it was found that French’s patent did not cover all uses of wooden blocks for street pavement but only a specific method involving concrete and tar as binding agents which were not used by Barber. Therefore, there was no infringement on his patent rights since they had used an entirely different process to lay their wood block pavements without using any form of cementitious material or adhesive substance between the individual blocks or layers thereof as specified in French’s claim.

In the dissenting opinion for French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company, it was argued that the decision of the majority undermines state sovereignty and infringes upon states' rights to control their own property. The dissenting justices contended that a city street is not an instrumentality of interstate commerce, but rather a part of the domestic economy under exclusive local jurisdiction and management. They believed that Congress does not have authority over such matters unless they directly affect interstate commerce or are necessary for its regulation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "commerce" in this context as overly broad and inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues. In essence, these justices felt strongly about preserving boundaries between federal power and state autonomy when it comes to managing local affairs like public roads.