In the United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Company case of 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and natural gas rights. The Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Company had been extracting natural gas from land it owned in Pennsylvania and transporting it to New York for sale. However, they were not paying taxes on this activity because they claimed that their operations fell under interstate commerce laws which exempted them from state taxation. The U.S government disagreed with this interpretation and sued for back taxes owed by the company. The court sided with the government, ruling that while transportation of goods across state lines was indeed part of interstate commerce, extraction or production activities within a single state did not fall under these protections. Therefore, such activities could be subject to local tax laws without violating federal law or constitutionally protected freedoms related to trade between states.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Company case argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Act was too broad and could potentially criminalize normal business practices. The dissenting justices believed that not all monopolies were inherently harmful or illegal, especially if they resulted from superior skill, foresight or industry. They also disagreed with the majority's view on price-fixing agreements among competitors, arguing such arrangements might sometimes be necessary to ensure market stability and prevent ruinous competition. Furthermore, they contended that it should be up to Congress rather than courts to decide whether a particular monopoly is detrimental to public interest and thus needs regulation.