In the case of Newton, as Attorney General of the State of New York, et al. v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York in 1921, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over gas prices and regulations imposed by state law. The Consolidated Gas Company had challenged a statute that set maximum rates for gas sold to consumers at eighty cents per thousand cubic feet. The company argued this was confiscatory and violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because it did not allow them to earn a reasonable return on their investments. The court upheld the rate regulation after considering evidence about production costs and potential profits presented during trial proceedings in lower courts. It concluded that while businesses have an inherent right to make profits from their property or services rendered, public interest must also be considered when setting regulatory measures such as price caps; hence these should provide companies with just returns but not excessive earnings at customers' expense. This ruling affirmed states' power to regulate utilities within reason without infringing upon corporations' constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law setting gas prices was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of due process. He contended that it is not within the court's purview to determine whether or not a business can profit under certain rates; rather, this should be left up to market forces and legislative bodies who are better equipped to make such determinations. Furthermore, he believed that by allowing states to set arbitrary price controls without proper consideration for operating costs and reasonable profits, they were essentially permitting government-sanctioned confiscation of private property which goes against constitutional protections. In essence, his argument centered on protecting businesses from undue governmental interference while maintaining respect for individual rights as enshrined in the Constitution.