In the case of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. United States in 1924, the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of a railroad company's rates for transporting goods across state lines. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had previously ordered that certain rates charged by the railway were discriminatory and therefore illegal under federal law. The railway challenged this order in court, arguing that it was not given an opportunity to present evidence or arguments before the ICC made its decision. The Supreme Court sided with the government and upheld the ICC's order. It found that while due process requires individuals to have an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of property rights, this principle does not apply when regulatory agencies like ICC are setting general rules rather than adjudicating specific disputes between parties. This ruling affirmed broad powers for administrative agencies to regulate commerce without needing courts' approval at every step along way - a significant development during era when such regulation was becoming increasingly important part of American economy.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering railroads to establish through routes and joint rates without first finding that existing arrangements were unjust or unreasonable. He contended that this was a violation of due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as it allowed regulatory bodies to interfere with private contracts and business operations without sufficient cause or justification. Furthermore, he asserted that such actions could potentially lead to arbitrary rate-setting and other abuses of power by government agencies in their regulation of commerce activities.