The U.S. Supreme Court case Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission in 1909 revolved around the issue of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering a railroad company to cease discriminatory practices against certain shippers. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company argued that the ICC did not have this power, while the ICC maintained it was within their jurisdiction as per federal law to prevent unfair shipping rates or practices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC, upholding their order against discrimination by railroads towards any particular person or locality in charges for transportation services under Section 3 of the Act to Regulate Commerce. This decision affirmed that Congress intended for such regulatory powers when they established these agencies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this matter, as it was a dispute between a private corporation and an administrative agency. The dissenters believed that Congress had granted the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) authority to regulate railroad rates, thus any disputes regarding these rates should be resolved by the ICC itself or through legislative action rather than judicial review. They contended that allowing courts to intervene in such matters would undermine regulatory agencies' ability to effectively carry out their duties and could potentially lead to inconsistent rulings on similar issues. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential bias if courts were allowed to second-guess decisions made by expert regulators who are presumably more knowledgeable about complex technical matters related to their respective industries.