In the case of Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann et al., 1956, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). The dispute arose when CAB issued an order to Frontier Airlines to cease and desist from engaging in air transportation between certain points without a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Frontier challenged this order arguing that it was not engaged in interstate commerce as defined by Federal Aviation Act because its flights were wholly within one state, Nebraska. However, CAB contended that since these flights connected with other airlines providing interstate service they fell under federal jurisdiction. The court agreed with CAB's interpretation stating that Congress intended for comprehensive regulation over all aspects of aviation including intrastate segments if they are part of a larger network offering interstate services.

In the dissenting opinion for Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann et al., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold the Civil Aeronautics Board's (CAB) authority was a misinterpretation of Congress' intent in creating CAB. He believed that while Congress did intend for CAB to have broad regulatory powers, it did not mean for those powers to extend so far as to allow CAB to regulate airline employees' labor disputes, which he saw as outside of its jurisdiction. Instead, he suggested these issues should be handled by other agencies specifically designed and equipped with expertise in handling labor relations such as National Mediation Board or National Labor Relations Board. Furthermore, Frankfurter expressed concern over potential conflicts between different government agencies if they were all allowed similar regulatory power over airlines without clear delineations of their respective jurisdictions.