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 corporations operating within its borders. The International Harvester Company was charged with violating a Kentucky law that prohibited corporations from owning or controlling other companies engaged in similar businesses without approval from the state legislature. The company argued that this law violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process and denying equal protection under the laws. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected these arguments stating that states have broad powers to regulate corporate activities within their borders as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce or violate specific constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting corporations from owning farmland in order to prevent monopolies was misguided. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying corporations equal protection under the law. They contended that there were other ways to regulate and control potential abuses by large corporations without resorting to outright prohibition on land ownership, which they saw as an overreach of government power. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of businesses were treated under this law - while farming companies could not own land, mining companies could own mineral rights - arguing these discrepancies further demonstrated its unconstitutionality.