In the case of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin (1914), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state had the authority to regulate interstate commerce rates for railroads within its borders. The dispute arose when Wisconsin's railroad commission set maximum rates that were lower than what the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company wanted to charge for transporting goods and passengers across state lines. The company argued this violated their rights under federal law which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. The court ruled in favor of Wisconsin's railroad commission, stating that while Congress does have control over interstate commerce, it doesn't mean states are completely barred from regulating aspects affecting public health or safety within their jurisdiction - including setting reasonable freight and passenger rates on railroads operating inside their boundaries. This decision upheld states' rights to protect consumers against potentially unfair pricing practices by large corporations involved in interstate trade.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in a matter that was essentially within state jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that the State of Wisconsin had acted within its rights when it set rates for intrastate commerce and therefore, federal interference was unwarranted. They contended that states should be allowed to regulate their own affairs without undue intrusion from federal authorities unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violation or infringement on interstate commerce. In this particular case, they did not see any such violation or infringement and thus disagreed with majority's decision to strike down Wisconsin’s rate-setting law as unconstitutional.