The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey et al. v. United States and Interstate Commerce Commission case in 1921 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had authority to regulate intrastate rail rates when they affected interstate commerce negatively. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICC, stating that it did have such power under certain circumstances as per the Shreveport Doctrine established earlier by Houston E & W Texas Railway Co v US (1914). This doctrine allowed federal regulation if intrastate activities were found to be detrimental to interstate commerce. In this case, lower freight charges for coal transportation within Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania-based railroads were deemed harmful for out-of-state competitors like Central Railroad Company of New Jersey who couldn't match these prices due to higher costs associated with longer distances covered in their operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Railroad Company of New Jersey et al. v. United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing interstate commerce regulation. He contended that the ruling granted excessive power to administrative bodies like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), allowing them to interfere with private contracts and business operations without sufficient justification or oversight. According to him, this could lead to arbitrary decisions by these agencies, infringing on property rights and threatening economic stability. Furthermore, he believed that it was not within ICC’s jurisdictional purview under existing law to mandate uniform accounting systems across different railroad companies as each company had unique operational circumstances which required tailored approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all system imposed by an external body.