The Supreme Court case Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., et al., 1971, revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Andrews, was an employee of the defendant railroad company and suffered injuries while on duty due to alleged negligence by his employer. He filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for his injuries under FELA. However, he had previously received benefits from his employer's insurance policy which also covered work-related accidents. The question before the court was whether these payments should be deducted from any damages awarded under FELA or if they could be considered separate compensations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andrews stating that such payments were not required to be deducted from damage awards under FELA as it did not contain any provisions requiring such deductions nor did it intend to limit recovery in this way. Thus, employees who receive benefits through their employers' insurance policies are still entitled to full compensation for their injuries under FELA without having those benefits deducted.

In the dissenting opinion for Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state statute requiring railroads to maintain separate waiting rooms for black and white passengers violated both the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal anti-discrimination laws. The dissenters contended that such segregation inherently interfered with interstate commerce by imposing additional costs on carriers, discouraging travel, and creating potential conflicts between states with differing racial policies. They also believed that this practice clearly constituted "undue or unreasonable prejudice" under federal law, rejecting arguments that it merely reflected social customs or passenger preferences rather than discriminatory intent by railroad companies themselves. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on outdated precedents upholding similar Jim Crow-era regulations despite significant changes in societal attitudes towards racial equality since then.