In the 1931 case of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United States et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States government and against several railroad companies who were challenging a law that regulated their rates for transporting goods across state lines. The railroads argued that this legislation was unconstitutional because it violated their Fifth Amendment rights by taking property without just compensation and denying them due process of law. However, the court disagreed with these arguments, stating that rate regulation did not constitute a direct appropriation of property and thus did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Furthermore, they found no violation to due process as long as rates set by regulatory bodies allowed for reasonable returns on investment for carriers.

In the dissenting opinion for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United States et al., Justice Stone argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by attempting to regulate intrastate commerce rates in Arizona and New Mexico, which he believed was a violation of state rights under the Constitution's Tenth Amendment. He contended that while Congress has power to control interstate commerce, it does not have unlimited power to regulate all aspects of business affecting such commerce indirectly or remotely; this includes local activities within states' jurisdiction like intrastate rail transport services. He also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on federalism if ICC’s decision were upheld as it would allow federal agencies to interfere with states’ ability to manage their own economic affairs without clear congressional authorization.