In the case of Browning v. City of Waycross in 1913, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance requiring railroads to install safety gates or employ flagmen at street crossings was not an unreasonable exercise of police power and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The plaintiff, a railroad company, argued that this requirement constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce and infringed upon its property rights without due process of law. However, the court upheld the validity of such ordinances as necessary for public safety purposes and within local government's regulatory authority over streets and highways under state law.

In the dissenting opinion for Browning v. City of Waycross, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a city ordinance requiring railroads to maintain fences along their tracks was unconstitutional. He argued that such an ordinance could be seen as a reasonable exercise of police power by local authorities in order to ensure public safety. The justice contended that it is within the purview of municipalities to regulate certain aspects related to railroads, including fencing requirements if they deem it necessary for preventing accidents or injuries. Therefore, he believed this should not have been viewed as an undue burden on interstate commerce and thus did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution.