In the 1920 case of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company et al. v. Des Moines Union Railway Company et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between several railway companies over access rights and usage fees for a shared terminal in Des Moines, Iowa. The plaintiff, Chicago, Milwaukee & St.Paul Railway Co., argued that it had been unfairly charged excessive rates by the defendant (Des Moines Union Railway Co.) for using its facilities at said terminal. The court ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that they were justified in charging higher rates due to their substantial investment into maintaining and improving these facilities which benefited all users including plaintiffs who did not contribute equally towards such costs.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company et al. v. Des Moines Union Railway Company et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a contract between two railway companies was not in violation of federal anti-trust laws because it did not restrain trade or commerce among states. He argued that such contracts could potentially lead to monopolies and stifle competition, which would be detrimental to public interest and contrary to the spirit of anti-trust legislation. Furthermore, he contended that even if this particular contract did not have an immediate impact on interstate commerce, its potential future effects should still be considered under law.