In the case of International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1913, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's right to regulate business within its borders. The court upheld a fine imposed by Kentucky on International Harvester for violating an antitrust law that prohibited corporations from controlling or attempting to control trade and commerce through contracts or agreements that restrained competition. The company argued that it was not subject to this law because it was incorporated under laws outside Kentucky and conducted most transactions out-of-state; however, they did have offices and agents operating within Kentucky. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for the majority, stated that while states cannot directly regulate interstate commerce (a power reserved for Congress), they can indirectly influence such commerce through legitimate exercises of their police powers - including antitrust regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a fine against International Harvester was incorrect because it violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice contended that there was no evidence presented at trial showing that International Harvester had acted with intent to monopolize or restrain trade in violation of Kentucky law. Furthermore, they believed that even if such evidence existed, it would be irrelevant since corporations have a constitutional right to make contracts and agreements necessary for their business operations unless those actions are clearly harmful to public welfare. Therefore, according to this view, punishing a corporation merely on suspicion without concrete proof is unconstitutional and unjust.