In the case of Securities and Exchange Commission v. New England Electric System et al., 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC had sought to enforce provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company Act which required interstate public utility holding companies to simplify their corporate structures for better regulation. The New England Electric System (NEES) resisted this enforcement, arguing that it was not a holding company under definitions provided by law due to its lack of control over subsidiary companies' daily operations. However, NEES did admit that they controlled these subsidiaries through stock ownership and could influence major policy decisions if desired. The court found this level of control sufficient to classify NEES as a holding company subject to regulations outlined in the act.

In the dissenting opinion for SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) order requiring New England Electric System (NEES) to divest itself of certain securities was an overreach of authority by both the court and the SEC. He contended that there was no clear evidence showing NEES' ownership of these securities violated any laws or regulations, nor did it harm public interest or investors as claimed by the SEC. Furthermore, he criticized how much discretion this ruling gave to administrative agencies like the SEC in interpreting statutes such as Public Utility Holding Company Act without sufficient judicial oversight. This could potentially lead to arbitrary decisions based on subjective interpretations rather than objective legal standards, undermining rule-of-law principles.