In the case of Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson, 1956, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company (B&O). The dispute arose when B&O decided to abandon a portion of its railway line in Indiana due to financial losses and applied for permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which was granted. However, local grain elevator operators including Jackson challenged this decision arguing that it would harm their business by increasing transportation costs. They claimed that ICC's approval violated their Fifth Amendment rights as they were deprived of property without due process and just compensation. The court held that while businesses may be affected by regulatory decisions like these, such effects do not constitute a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment unless there is direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property. Therefore, any economic loss suffered by Jackson and others did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation since no physical property was taken away from them directly by government action.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to provide separate accommodations for black and white passengers violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters contended that this ruling effectively sanctioned racial segregation in public transportation, which they believed was inherently unequal and discriminatory against African Americans. They further asserted that such laws perpetuated harmful stereotypes about racial inferiority and superiority, thereby undermining efforts towards social equality and integration. In their view, any form of government-enforced segregation based on race is unconstitutional because it infringes upon individuals' fundamental rights to equal treatment under the law.