The U.S. Supreme Court case A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., et al. v United States et al., 1963 involved a challenge to the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) approval of long-term contracts between several railroads and coal companies for transportation services at fixed rates lower than those published by the railroads. The petitioner, A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., a competing barge line company that also transported coal, argued that these contracts violated the Interstate Commerce Act because they were discriminatory and anti-competitive in nature. However, the Supreme Court upheld ICC's decision approving these contracts on grounds of public interest considerations such as economic stability and predictability offered by long-term agreements which outweighed potential competitive harm alleged by Mechling. The court held that while competition is an important factor under consideration in rate regulation cases before ICC; it isn't an absolute value overriding all other considerations including public interest factors like financial stability of carriers or shippers' need for predictable costs over time.

In the dissenting opinion for A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., et al. v. United States et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Court majority had overstepped its boundaries by invalidating a contract between private parties and a public entity (the Chicago River & Indiana Railroad Company). He contended that this was not an antitrust case but rather one of regulatory law, as it involved rates set by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which were within their legal authority to establish under existing legislation at that time - The Transportation Act of 1940 and The Interstate Commerce Act. According to him, if there were any issues with these rates or contracts they should have been addressed through legislative reform or ICC proceedings rather than judicial intervention in commercial agreements made in good faith under current laws and regulations.