The U.S. Supreme Court case Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Co. v. United States in 1933 revolved around the issue of whether or not a railway company could claim deductions for federal income tax purposes based on depreciation of its properties used in operations during World War I under government control and direction. The court ruled that the railway company was entitled to such deductions as it retained ownership and responsibility for maintenance and repairs despite being operated by the U.S Railroad Administration from 1918-1920 due to wartime exigencies. This decision clarified that even though operational control had been temporarily transferred, financial obligations remained with the owner entity which therefore justified their claims for depreciation-related tax reductions.

In the dissenting opinion for Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 1933, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not have the authority to regulate intrastate rates in Montana as they were not directly affecting interstate commerce and thus fell outside of its jurisdiction. The dissenters believed that this case represented an overreach by a federal agency into state matters without sufficient justification or evidence of harm to interstate commerce. They maintained that there should be clear proof of such harm before any intervention is made on local affairs by federal authorities like ICC; otherwise, it would undermine states' rights and disrupt their ability to manage their own economic affairs effectively.