The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. et al v United States et al in 1943 revolved around the issue of whether or not a railroad company could be compelled to continue providing passenger services despite significant financial losses incurred from such operations. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered the railway companies to maintain their passenger service on certain routes even though these were operating at a loss and causing financial strain for the companies involved. The railway companies appealed this decision arguing that it was unjust and unreasonable under Section 1(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act which required railroads to provide "reasonable" services upon "reasonable request". However, the Supreme Court upheld ICC's order stating that public interest outweighed any potential harm suffered by carriers due to economic loss from maintaining those services.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. et al. v. United States et al., Justice Robert H Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold an order by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a departure from established principles of administrative law and due process rights of regulated companies under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that ICC had exceeded its statutory authority by imposing rates on railroads without providing them with an opportunity to present evidence or arguments against such rates before they were set in place - a violation of their constitutional right to fair hearing procedures before being deprived of property interests. Furthermore, he criticized ICC's reliance on generalized data rather than specific cost studies related to individual carriers as arbitrary and capricious rulemaking not supported by substantial evidence required under Administrative Procedure Act standards.