The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company v. Roberts in 1891 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate rates for interstate commerce or if this power was exclusively federal under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff, Roberts, had sued to recover overcharges on freight shipped from Minnesota to Wisconsin based on a rate set by Minnesota law that was higher than what he believed should have been charged under federal regulation. The railway company argued that states retained some authority over interstate commerce when it involved intrastate activities such as loading and unloading goods at depots within their borders. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while states do retain certain powers related to local aspects of interstate commerce (like public safety), they cannot interfere with its fundamental operations like setting rates which is solely reserved for Congress under the Commerce Clause due to its inherently national character requiring uniformity across all states.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company v. Roberts, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Minnesota law that allowed injured employees to sue their employers in cases of negligence. He argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause by unfairly depriving railway companies of property without just compensation or legal proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that such laws were biased against corporations and favored individual workers excessively; thus creating an imbalance in justice system which should treat all parties equally regardless of their status or power.