In the case of Boston & Maine Railroad v. Armburg, 1931, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boston & Maine Railroad. The dispute arose when a railroad employee was injured while working on an interstate train and sought compensation under Massachusetts' Workmen's Compensation Act. However, his claim was denied by both the Industrial Accident Board and state courts due to jurisdictional issues as they believed that federal law should apply instead because he was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of injury. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it held that even though he was involved in interstate commerce during his accident, this did not preclude him from seeking relief under state law unless there were explicit provisions within federal legislation barring such claims or if applying state laws would interfere with national uniformity concerning regulation of railroads.

In the dissenting opinion for Boston & Maine Railroad v. Armburg, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Massachusetts law requiring railroads to compensate employees for injuries sustained while traveling to and from work was an overreach of state power. The dissent contended that such laws interfered with interstate commerce by imposing burdensome regulations on railroad companies operating across state lines. They believed this case fell under federal jurisdiction as it involved interstate commerce, not just local or intrastate matters. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing states to regulate industries so heavily involved in interstate trade and transportation without any clear limits or guidelines from Congress.