In the case of Burlington Northern Inc. et al. v. United States et al., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by a train derailment that resulted in an oil spill, even though it had leased its tracks to another company at the time of the incident. The court ruled in favor of Burlington Northern Inc., stating that under federal law, liability for such incidents rests with those who are actively involved in transportation at the time and not necessarily with owners or lessors of infrastructure used during transport operations. Therefore, since Burlington Northern was not operating on its own track when this accident occurred but had leased it out to another entity instead, they were found not responsible for any resulting damage from this event.

In the dissenting opinion for Burlington Northern Inc. et al. v. United States et al., Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act was incorrect and overly narrow. They contended that Congress intended to give railroads broad power to establish reasonable rates without interference from state authorities or courts when it passed this legislation in 1920. The dissenters believed that allowing states or courts to interfere with these rate-setting powers would undermine federal regulation of interstate commerce and could potentially lead to discriminatory practices against certain shippers or regions, which is exactly what Congress sought to prevent with this law.