The U.S. Supreme Court case Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. et al. v. United States et al., 1935, revolved around the legality of a rate increase by several railway companies for transporting coal in West Virginia and Kentucky to points eastward across state lines, which was challenged by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC argued that the increased rates were unreasonable and discriminatory against shippers from these states compared to those from other regions such as Pennsylvania and Ohio where rates remained unchanged or decreased slightly due to competition factors. The railways contended that they had a right to adjust their prices based on market conditions without government interference under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, after reviewing evidence presented about operating costs, revenues and competitive pressures faced by railroads in different regions, along with considering past precedents regarding regulatory powers over interstate commerce granted by Congress under Article I Section 8 of Constitution; Justice Cardozo delivered majority opinion upholding ICC's decision stating it did not violate constitutional rights of railroads but rather served public interest ensuring fair trade practices within national transportation system.

The dissenting opinion in the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States case argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering railroads to install automatic train control devices without sufficient evidence of their necessity or effectiveness. The dissenters believed that such a decision should be left to Congress, not an administrative agency like the ICC. They also expressed concern about the financial burden this would place on railroad companies during a time of economic depression and questioned whether it was reasonable for all railroads, regardless of size or resources, to be held to the same standard. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of "safety appliance" under Safety Appliance Act which included automatic train control devices within its scope.