In the case of Ottinger, Attorney General of New York v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company (1926), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brooklyn Union Gas Company. The issue at hand was whether or not a state could regulate and limit prices that utility companies charge their customers for gas and electricity services. The State of New York had passed legislation to cap these rates, but the Brooklyn Union Gas Company argued this violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause by depriving them of property without just compensation. In its decision, the court held that while states have power to control public utilities within reasonable bounds, they cannot set rates so low as to be confiscatory - meaning they can't force utilities into operating at a loss. This ruling thus upheld businesses' right to earn a fair return on investment while also acknowledging states' regulatory powers over public utilities.

In the dissenting opinion for Ottinger, Attorney General of New York v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a New York law that regulated gas prices. He argued that states have broad powers to regulate businesses within their borders and protect consumers from excessive charges. In his view, it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to second-guess state legislatures' decisions about economic policy unless they clearly violated constitutional rights or federal laws. He also pointed out that many other states had similar laws on their books and suggested that if such regulations were unconstitutional, then much of modern government would be as well.