In the case of Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company v. United States in 1909, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railway freight rates. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered the railway company to reduce its rates for transporting iron ore from two locations in Michigan and Minnesota to Chicago. The ICC argued that these rates were unreasonable and discriminatory against certain shippers. However, the railway company challenged this order as an unconstitutional interference with their property rights under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. The Supreme Court upheld the ICC's authority to regulate rail freight charges when they are found unjust or unreasonable but also emphasized that courts have a role in reviewing such decisions if railroad companies challenge them as confiscatory or otherwise unlawful under constitutional standards of due process protection for private property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company v. United States (1909), it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission did not have the authority to determine what constituted a reasonable rate without first establishing an abuse of power or unreasonable action by the railway company. The dissenters believed that this decision would give too much regulatory power to the commission, potentially infriting on private property rights protected under due process clause of Fifth Amendment. They also expressed concern about potential economic consequences if railroads were unable to set their own rates based on market conditions and operational costs.