In the 1962 case Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boston & Maine Railroad (B&M). The dispute arose when B&M, which was undergoing reorganization under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, sought to abandon two unprofitable branch lines without approval from Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and contrary to state laws. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., along with other parties, objected arguing that ICC's approval was necessary for such abandonment as per federal law and also because it would affect their interests adversely. However, the court held that a railroad company undergoing reorganization could abandon its unprofitable lines without obtaining prior permission from ICC if it is approved by its trustees and authorized by a federal district court overseeing its reorganization process.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) should have been given more deference in its decision to approve a merger between two railroad companies, despite potential antitrust concerns raised by other parties involved in the case. He believed that Congress had granted significant authority to ICC and it was not within the Court's purview to second-guess or override this expert agency's decisions without clear evidence of legal error or abuse of discretion. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were substantial public interest considerations at stake which could justify such a merger even if it might otherwise appear anti-competitive under traditional antitrust analysis.