In the case of Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railroad Co. v. United States et al., 1935, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad companies and their rates for transporting goods across state lines. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered reduced freight rates in response to complaints from shippers that existing charges were excessive and discriminatory. The railroads challenged this order, arguing it was beyond ICC's authority as it would force them into financial hardship by not covering operational costs or providing reasonable profits. The Supreme Court upheld the ICC's decision stating that its role is to balance public interest against fair returns for carriers; if there are disagreements over rate calculations they should be resolved in favor of public interest unless evidence clearly shows otherwise. It also clarified that courts cannot interfere with administrative decisions unless they're plainly unreasonable or unlawful - which wasn't proven here by railroads. This ruling affirmed federal regulatory power over interstate commerce and emphasized deference towards administrative agencies' expertise in technical matters within their jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railroad Co. v. United States et al., 1935, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by imposing a uniform system of accounts on intrastate railroads without sufficient evidence to justify such an action. The dissenting justices believed that this decision disregarded states' rights and interfered with their ability to regulate local businesses as they saw fit. They also expressed concern about the potential for federal agencies like the ICC to abuse their power if left unchecked by judicial review. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of "commerce" under the Commerce Clause of Constitution which allowed Congress broad regulatory powers over interstate commerce but not intrastate activities unless there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce - something they felt wasn't adequately demonstrated in this case.