In the case of Newton, Attorney General of the State of New York, et al. v. Kings County Lighting Company in 1921, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a public utility company and state regulators over gas prices. The Kings County Lighting Company had been ordered by New York's Public Service Commission to lower its rates for gas services but argued that this would not allow them to earn a fair return on their investments as per their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. However, upon review, it was found that while companies have a right to make profits from reasonable rates set by regulatory bodies; they do not have an inherent right to maintain profit levels at previously high standards if those were deemed unreasonable or exploitative towards consumers. Therefore, the court upheld the commission's rate order stating it did not violate any constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Newton v. Kings County Lighting Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a New York law that regulated gas prices. He argued that states should have broad powers to regulate businesses within their borders and protect consumers from price gouging or other unfair practices. Holmes believed that courts should defer to legislatures in matters of economic policy unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violation. In this case, he saw no such violation; rather, he viewed the regulation as a legitimate exercise of state power aimed at preventing potential abuses by utility companies who held monopolistic control over essential services like gas supply. Therefore, according to him, it was inappropriate for the court to interfere with legislative judgment on such issues based on its own economic theories or preferences.