In Gould v. Ruefenacht et al, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving securities regulation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Gould, was an Oregon resident who sold securities to Ruefenacht, a Washington resident. However, he did not have a license to sell in Washington state as required by its law at that time. When Ruefenacht suffered financial losses from his investments with Gould's firm and sued for damages under the Washington Securities Act (WSA), Gould argued that this act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution because it had extraterritorial effects on interstate commerce. The court held that WSA does not violate the Commerce Clause since it only regulates transactions within its borders or those which cause harm within them even if they originate elsewhere; thus having no direct control over out-of-state activities unless they result in substantial local injury or fraudulence affecting its residents' interests. This ruling affirmed states’ rights to regulate business practices impacting their citizens while also maintaining federal oversight of interstate commerce without undue interference into other states' affairs.

In the dissenting opinion for Gould v. Ruefenacht, Justice White disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a Washington state law that required brokers dealing in commodity futures contracts to be licensed by the state. He argued that while federal law does regulate these transactions, it doesn't necessarily preempt states from imposing additional requirements or regulations. According to him, there was no clear indication of Congress' intent to exclude states from regulating this area and thus he believed that both levels of government could coexist in their regulation efforts without conflict. Furthermore, he pointed out that if every instance where federal and state laws overlap were considered preemption then many valid and necessary local regulations would be invalidated unnecessarily.