The U.S. Supreme Court case New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans et al., 1988 revolved around a dispute between the city council and a public utility company over rate increases for electricity services in the city of New Orleans. The utility company argued that it was entitled to raise its rates due to increased costs, while the city council opposed this on behalf of consumers who would be affected by higher prices. The court ruled in favor of the city council, stating that local governments have broad authority under federal law to regulate utilities within their jurisdiction and protect consumer interests from unjust or unreasonable charges.

In the dissenting opinion for New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding abstention doctrines and federal jurisdiction over state law claims. He contended that this case did not meet any criteria for Pullman or Burford abstentions as there were no unclear issues of state law nor complex state regulatory schemes at stake which could be disrupted by federal intrusion. Furthermore, he believed that NOPSI’s constitutional claim was substantial enough to warrant review in federal court rather than being remanded back to a local agency with limited judicial capacity like the city council. In his view, it is essential for courts to exercise their duty in protecting individual rights against unconstitutional municipal actions instead of avoiding such responsibility through unwarranted application of abstention doctrines.