In the case of New Orleans Gas Company v. Louisiana Light Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the Louisiana Light Company had the right to construct a gas plant in the city of New Orleans. The New Orleans Gas Company argued that the Louisiana Light Company had no right to construct the plant, as it was in violation of the exclusive rights granted to the New Orleans Gas Company by the state of Louisiana. The Supreme Court held that the Louisiana Light Company did not have the right to construct the gas plant in New Orleans. The Court found that the exclusive rights granted to the New Orleans Gas Company by the state of Louisiana were valid and enforceable, and that the Louisiana Light Company had no right to construct the plant in violation of those rights. The Court also held that the Louisiana Light Company was not entitled to any compensation for the costs of constructing the plant, as it had no legal right to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the exclusive rights granted to the New Orleans Gas Company by the state of Louisiana were valid and enforceable, and that the Louisiana Light Company had no right to construct the gas plant in violation of those rights. The Court also held that the Louisiana Light Company was not entitled to any compensation for the costs of constructing the plant.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in New Orleans Gas Company v. Louisiana Light Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to grant exclusive rights or privileges for any purpose other than those expressly enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Furthermore, he noted that even if such an act were constitutional it would be void because it violated both state law and public policy by granting exclusive rights over matters traditionally regulated by states. Additionally, Justice Field argued that since this case involved only private parties there was no need for federal intervention as there was no dispute between two different states or between citizens of different states; thus making this a matter best left up to state courts rather than the Supreme Court. Finally, he concluded his dissent with a warning against expanding federal power beyond its intended scope which could have far-reaching consequences on our nation’s legal system and government structure as a whole.