In the case of Davis v. Currie, 1924, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over compensation for land taken by the federal government under eminent domain during World War I. The Transportation Act of 1920 allowed for such seizures to facilitate transportation and communication during wartime. A South Carolina man named J.A. Currie had his property seized in this manner but was not satisfied with the compensation he received from W.G Davis, an agent appointed by President Woodrow Wilson to handle these matters. Currie sued Davis in state court and won additional damages; however, this decision was appealed all the way up to U.S Supreme Court which ruled that only federal courts could hear cases involving actions taken under federal law (in this instance - The Transportation Act). Therefore, it held that South Carolina's courts lacked jurisdiction over Mr.Curie’s claim against Mr.Davis because it involved a matter of Federal Law. The ruling clarified issues regarding jurisdiction between state and federal courts when dealing with disputes arising out of federally mandated actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. Currie, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Transportation Act of 1920. He argued that Congress did not intend to give rail carriers a blanket exemption from state laws when it passed this legislation. Instead, he believed that Congress intended to provide temporary relief for these companies during a period of financial distress following World War I by allowing them to consolidate and reorganize under federal supervision. According to Justice McReynolds, this was meant as an emergency measure rather than a permanent change in policy; therefore, it should not be interpreted as overriding all existing state regulations related to rail transportation. The justice also expressed concern about potential abuse if such broad powers were granted without clear legislative intent or oversight mechanisms in place.