In the case of United States, Federal Communications Commission and Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al., 1995, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding telecommunication regulations. The issue at hand was whether or not telephone companies could charge customers for enhanced services such as Caller ID. The court held that under the Communications Act of 1934, these services were considered "basic" rather than "enhanced," meaning they fell within federal jurisdiction and thus could be regulated by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). This ruling allowed phone companies to continue charging for these services but also gave regulatory power over them to the FCC.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States, Federal Communications Commission and Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold FCC regulations requiring telephone companies to provide access to their networks at regulated rates was a violation of the Takings Clause. The dissenters believed that these regulations essentially forced private companies into providing a public service without just compensation, which they saw as an unconstitutional taking of property rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "just and reasonable" rates under the Communications Act, arguing that it should not be interpreted so broadly as to allow for such extensive regulation by government agencies.