In the case of Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had acted within its authority when it granted a motor carrier's application for operating rights without considering protests from competing carriers about potential economic harm to their businesses. The court ruled in favor of Bowman Transportation and held that while ICC is required by law to consider all relevant factors before granting an application for operating rights - including possible effects on existing carriers - it does not have to provide detailed explanations as long as its decision is rational and supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, ICC can grant applications even if there might be some adverse impact on other carriers; what matters most is public convenience and necessity.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., Justice Douglas argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its bounds by denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Bowman Transportation. He believed that the ICC's decision was based on protecting existing carriers from competition rather than considering what would be in the best interest of public service as required by law. According to him, this protectionist stance stifled innovation and progress within the industry while also potentially leading to higher prices for consumers due to lack of competition. Furthermore, he criticized how evidence was evaluated in these cases - stating that it seemed more like an administrative ritual than a genuine assessment of whether granting such certificates would serve or harm public interests.