In the 1916 case of Lehon v. City of Atlanta, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to regulate and control public utilities within its jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Mr. Lehon, was a French citizen who owned shares in an Atlanta water company that had been granted a franchise by the city council to supply water for fifty years starting from 1875. However, after twenty-five years into this agreement (in 1900), another ordinance was passed reducing rates charged by all such companies operating within city limits which affected his profits as a shareholder adversely. He sued on grounds that this action violated international law protecting property rights and sought damages for lost income due to reduced rates imposed unilaterally by local authorities without consent or compensation offered to shareholders like him. The court rejected these claims stating that no treaty with France provided any special protection against regulation of public utilities beyond what is available under domestic laws; hence there were no violations committed against international law principles regarding foreign investments' protection nor did it infringe upon his constitutional rights as he alleged since municipal corporations have inherent powers over their territories including regulating businesses serving essential needs like water supply services where they can set reasonable prices ensuring fair returns while also safeguarding consumers' interests from being exploited through excessive charges.

The dissenting opinion in the case of LEHON v. CITY OF ATLANTA, 1916 argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial authority and a violation of states' rights. The justice believed that it was not within the purview of the Supreme Court to interfere with local or state laws unless they were clearly unconstitutional. In this case, he felt there was no clear evidence that Atlanta's ordinance violated any constitutional provisions. He also expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could intervene in local affairs without just cause, potentially undermining state sovereignty and self-governance.