The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Nebraska, ex rel. Omaha (1897) revolved around the constitutionality of a state law that regulated railroad freight rates within its borders. The State of Nebraska had passed a law setting maximum rates railroads could charge for transporting goods within the state, arguing it was in public interest to prevent excessive charges by monopolistic railroads. However, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company challenged this law as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because it interfered with their right to set prices based on market conditions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nebraska stating that states have power to regulate businesses operating entirely within their boundaries even if they are part of interstate commerce networks; provided such regulations do not conflict with federal laws or unreasonably burden interstate commerce itself. This decision upheld states' rights to protect consumers from potentially exploitative business practices while also recognizing limits imposed by federal authority over interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Nebraska, Ex Rel. Omaha (1897), Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power which undermined states' rights to regulate their own internal affairs. He contended that it was not within the purview of federal courts to determine whether a state law is reasonable or not; rather, this should be left up to state legislatures who are more familiar with local conditions and needs. Furthermore, he believed that there were sufficient safeguards in place at the state level to protect against unjust legislation without needing interference from federal courts. In his view, if every law affecting property interests could be challenged as unconstitutional under due process grounds simply because someone deemed it unreasonable or unfair then virtually all laws would become subject to review by judges instead of elected representatives - a situation he found untenable.