The Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas case in 1899 revolved around the state of Texas accusing the oil company of violating antitrust laws by engaging in a monopoly with Standard Oil and Republic Oil companies, thus controlling prices and limiting competition. The Supreme Court ruled that while corporations operating within a single state are not subject to federal regulation, they can be regulated under state law if their actions have an interstate impact. In this case, it was found that Waters-Pierce had indeed violated Texas' anti-trust laws through its monopolistic practices which impacted trade across states. Therefore, the court upheld the decision to expel Waters-Pierce from doing business in Texas for five years and imposed penalties on them.

In the dissenting opinion for Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas, Justice Harlan argued that the court majority had overstepped its authority by reevaluating evidence and making factual determinations, which he believed was a role reserved for juries or lower courts. He maintained that it was not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide whether Waters-Pierce Oil Company violated Texas anti-trust laws; rather, their duty was to determine if these state laws were constitutional. Furthermore, Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment protections. He contended that corporations should be held accountable in states where they conduct business even if they are incorporated elsewhere - an issue central to this case as Waters-Pierce Oil Co., incorporated in Missouri but operating extensively in Texas, claimed immunity from Texan law enforcement on grounds of interstate commerce protection.