In the 1931 case of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, upholding its authority to regulate interstate commerce through agencies like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The railroad companies had challenged an ICC order that required them to provide a specific type of coal car for shippers at no additional cost, arguing it was beyond ICC's jurisdiction and violated their Fifth Amendment rights against property seizure without due process or compensation. However, Justice Benjamin Cardozo delivered a unanimous decision stating that this requirement was within ICC's power as it directly related to transportation services provided by railroads under reasonable rates and conditions - key aspects regulated by ICC under federal law. Furthermore, he clarified that such regulation did not constitute property seizure as claimed by railroads since they were not deprived from using or disposing off these cars but merely directed on how best to use them for public benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al., Justice Stone argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering railroads to establish through routes and joint rates without first determining whether existing arrangements were unjust or unreasonable, as required by law. He contended that such a determination was necessary before any changes could be made, and in this case, it had not been done properly or at all. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that there was substantial evidence supporting ICC’s decision; instead asserting that their findings were based on speculation rather than concrete facts or data about potential traffic diversion due to rate disparities between different routes.