In the 1896 case of Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company v. Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company against a claim made by Roberts for damages due to negligence on part of the railway company's employees which resulted in injury to his cattle during transportation. The court held that under common law principles applicable at that time, a carrier could not be held liable for injuries caused by its own negligence if it had taken reasonable precautions and used ordinary care in handling livestock entrusted to it for transport unless there was an explicit agreement stating otherwise between both parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company v. Roberts, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding interstate commerce regulation. He contended that states should have authority to regulate railroad rates within their borders unless Congress explicitly preempts such power through legislation or if state laws directly conflict with federal law. In this case, he believed neither condition had been met; there was no explicit Congressional act preempting state rate-setting powers nor any direct conflict between Minnesota’s Granger Laws and federal law on interstate commerce. Therefore, he felt it inappropriate for the Court to strike down a validly enacted state statute regulating railroads operating within its boundaries based on an overly broad interpretation of what constituted interference with interstate commerce.