In the 1907 case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government's right to regulate railroad rates under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) of 1887. The railway company had challenged a rate reduction ordered by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), arguing that it was confiscatory and violated their Fifth Amendment rights against taking private property for public use without just compensation. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, held that while railroads were entitled to earn a reasonable return on their investments, they could not charge unreasonable or discriminatory rates even if this reduced their profits below what they considered satisfactory. This landmark decision affirmed federal regulatory power over interstate commerce and set important precedents regarding judicial review of administrative actions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company v. United States in 1907, Justice Harlan argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) should have more authority to set railroad rates. He disagreed with the majority's view that courts could overrule ICC decisions on what constituted reasonable rates. Harlan believed this undermined Congress' intent when it established the ICC and gave it power to regulate interstate commerce. He warned against allowing judicial interference in administrative matters, arguing that such a practice would lead to inconsistent rulings and uncertainty within industries subject to regulation. Furthermore, he contended that if railroads were dissatisfied with rate determinations by the ICC they should appeal directly to Congress rather than seeking relief from courts.