The U.S. Supreme Court case O'Gorman and Young, Incorporated v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company in 1930 revolved around the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that regulated insurance rates to prevent price discrimination. The plaintiff, an insurance agency named O'Gorman & Young Inc., argued that this law violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process of law and denying them equal protection under the laws. However, the court ruled against O'Gorman & Young Inc., upholding the validity of state regulation on insurance rates as it was within states’ police power to regulate businesses for public welfare purposes such as preventing unfair or discriminatory practices in commerce. This decision affirmed that states could enact legislation aimed at controlling potential abuses in business operations without violating constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for O'Gorman and Young, Incorporated v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold New Jersey's law regulating insurance commissions was inconsistent with previous rulings on interstate commerce. He contended that the sale of an insurance policy is a transaction in interstate commerce when it involves parties from different states or countries. Therefore, he believed such transactions should be protected from state regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. In his view, by allowing New Jersey to regulate these transactions through its commission rate laws, this ruling effectively permitted individual states to control and potentially disrupt national and international trade in insurance policies.