In the 1910 case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. McGuire, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, McGuire had sued for damages after being injured while working for the company due to alleged negligence on part of his superiors. However, he was denied recovery under an Iowa state law that held employers liable only if they were personally negligent or had knowledge about a dangerous situation but failed to act upon it. The court upheld this law stating that it did not violate either Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause as claimed by McGuire who argued that such laws unfairly discriminated against railway employees compared to other workers since they faced higher risks yet could not sue their employers unless these specific conditions were met.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. McGuire argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power which infringed upon states' rights to regulate their own affairs. The dissenters believed that it was not within the purview of federal courts to determine whether a state law is reasonable or not, as long as it does not directly conflict with federal laws or constitutionally protected rights. They contended that Nebraska had every right to pass legislation requiring railroads operating within its borders to provide safe working conditions for their employees, including adequate rest periods between shifts. This regulation did not violate any constitutional provisions nor interfere with interstate commerce in any significant way; therefore, they felt it should have been upheld by the court.