In the 1985 case Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). The court held that a state regulation forcing PG&E to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelopes was unconstitutional as it violated the company's First Amendment rights. The Public Utilities Commission of California had ordered PG&E to include newsletters from an intervenor group called Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) which often disagreed with PG&E’s views on energy issues and policies. However, Justice Powell writing for the majority argued that such forced inclusion amounted to compelled speech and infringed upon PG&E's right not to speak or endorse viewpoints contrary to its own interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was an overextension of First Amendment rights to corporations and a misinterpretation of previous case law. He contended that utility bills are not traditionally seen as a platform for public debate and therefore should not be protected under free speech laws in the same way as other forms of communication might be. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that forcing PG&E to include third-party flyers in its billing envelopes constituted compelled speech on part of the company; instead, he saw it as simply regulating business practices within an industry where one entity (PG&E) held significant market power. Finally, Rehnquist expressed concern about potential implications this ruling could have on future cases involving government regulation and corporate rights.