The case of In re City of Louisville, Kentucky in 1913 involved the city's petition to the Supreme Court regarding a dispute over its right to regulate and control public utilities. The issue arose when the city attempted to enforce an ordinance that required telephone companies operating within its jurisdiction to obtain a franchise from it. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company challenged this ordinance, arguing that they were already operating under franchises granted by other authorities and thus should not be subject to additional regulation by the city. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Louisville, stating that municipalities have inherent power as part of their police powers over streets and public places which includes regulating utilities using those spaces for their operations. Therefore, even though Cumberland had existing franchises elsewhere, they still needed one from Louisville if they wished to operate there.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re City of Louisville, Kentucky, 1913 argued that the city's actions were not unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that the city had a right to make decisions regarding public utilities and services within its jurisdiction. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process rights and felt that it was overly broad. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on local governance if cities could be easily sued for making administrative decisions. Furthermore, they questioned whether federal courts should even have jurisdiction over such matters as they are primarily state issues.