The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company v. Williams in 1906 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate railroad rates for interstate commerce or if this was solely under federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Williams, sued the railway company for charging more than what he believed was allowed by Iowa law for transporting his livestock across states. The railway company argued that it wasn't subject to state regulation as its operations were part of interstate commerce which is regulated federally under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The court ruled in favor of Williams stating that while Congress has exclusive power over interstate commerce, it had not exercised its full authority at that time allowing states to pass laws affecting such matters until Congress chose to act upon them fully. Therefore, Iowa's regulations on railroad rates did not infrallynge upon federal powers and were valid.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company v. Williams, Justice Harlan argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to intervene in matters concerning state regulations unless there is a clear violation or infringement on constitutional rights. He contended that states should have regulatory power over corporations operating within their borders as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce laws or violate any provisions in the Constitution. In this particular case, he believed that Iowa's law requiring railway companies to provide equal services at equal rates did not infrally upon any constitutional right nor impede interstate commerce but rather served public interest by ensuring fair treatment for all passengers regardless of their location along a route. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s decision to strike down Iowa's regulation as unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce.