In the case of Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the telephone company. The court held that a state regulatory commission could not reduce rates charged by a utility without first providing an opportunity for judicial review to determine whether such rate reduction would deny the utility its constitutional right to earn a fair return on its property used and useful in rendering service to public. This decision was based on due process clause under Fourteenth Amendment which protects against arbitrary governmental actions depriving individuals or corporations their property rights without proper legal procedures being followed.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn the rate set by the state commission on grounds that it was confiscatory and violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that there was no evidence presented in court to suggest that such rates were unjust or unreasonable, nor did they prevent Ohio Bell from making a fair return on its investment. Furthermore, he contended that courts should not interfere with decisions made by administrative bodies like public utility commissions unless there is clear proof of constitutional violation or abuse of power. In his view, these agencies are better equipped than courts to handle complex economic issues related to rate setting because they have specialized knowledge and expertise in this area.