In the 1909 case of Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company v. J. Slade and E.M. Pless, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company against claims made by Slade and Pless for damages due to a train derailment that resulted in loss of their livestock being transported on said train. The court held that under federal law governing interstate commerce, a common carrier cannot contractually limit its liability for negligence unless it provides shippers with an option to pay higher rates for full liability coverage - something which was not offered by the railway company at this time. However, because there was no evidence presented proving negligence or misconduct on part of the railroad company leading to derailment, they were not liable for damages claimed by Slade and Pless.

In the dissenting opinion for Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company v. J. Slade and E.M. Pless (1909), Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring separate railway carriages for black and white passengers was fundamentally unjust. He contended that this ruling violated both the spirit of equality enshrined in the Constitution as well as specific legal protections against racial discrimination provided by federal legislation such as Civil Rights Act of 1875. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative implications of this decision on interstate commerce due to differing segregation laws among states which could cause confusion or conflict for rail companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.