In the case of Shafer, as Attorney General of the State of North Dakota, et al. v. Farmers Grain Company of Embden, et al., 1924, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that regulated grain elevators and warehouses violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The law in question allowed for public regulation and control over businesses involved in storing and marketing grain within North Dakota. The plaintiffs argued that this constituted an illegal taking without just compensation because it effectively turned their private enterprises into public utilities against their will. However, the court ruled in favor of North Dakota's right to regulate these industries as they saw fit for protecting its citizens' welfare - provided fair rates were set by a regulatory commission rather than arbitrarily by individual companies themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for Shafer v. Farmers Grain Company of Embden, Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to strike down a North Dakota law that regulated grain elevators as public utilities. He argued that states should have broad powers to regulate businesses within their borders and protect consumers from unfair practices. According to him, the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring fair prices and preventing monopolistic behavior by grain elevator operators who could potentially exploit farmers due to lack of competition. Furthermore, he contended that it was not appropriate for federal courts to second-guess decisions made by state legislatures about economic regulation unless they clearly violated constitutional rights or principles. In this case, he did not believe such violation occurred; hence he disagreed with striking down the law.