The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Ohio ex rel. Seney, Prosecuting Attorney of Lucas County, Ohio v. Swift & Company et al., 1922 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate prices for goods that had been shipped in from another state and were being held by a company for future sale. The court ruled against the State of Ohio, stating that once an item has been transported across state lines and is no longer in transit but instead held by a company for future sale or distribution within the new state's borders, it becomes part of the common mass of property within said state and therefore subject to its laws regarding price regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Ohio ex rel. Seney v. Swift & Company et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss Ohio's suit against meatpacking companies on grounds that it was a matter for federal, not state, jurisdiction. He argued that states should have authority over their own internal affairs and be able to protect themselves from potential harm caused by monopolies or trusts operating within their borders. Furthermore, he contended that if such matters were left solely in federal hands, then smaller businesses would suffer while larger corporations thrived unchecked - an outcome contrary to public interest and welfare. Thus, he believed this ruling undermined states' rights and threatened economic fairness.