The U.S. Supreme Court case East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission in 1900 revolved around the issue of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to regulate railway rates for interstate commerce. The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company challenged an order by ICC that reduced freight charges on southern railroads, arguing that it was beyond its jurisdiction as per the Constitution's commerce clause which only allowed Congress to regulate trade between states but not within them. However, the Supreme Court upheld ICC's decision stating that while individual states could control intrastate commerce rates, when these rates affected interstate traffic they fell under federal jurisdiction through ICC regulation powers granted by Congress. This ruling reinforced federal power over state rights in matters concerning interstate trade and solidified regulatory authority of agencies like ICC.

In the dissenting opinion for the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission case in 1900, it was argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in a matter that should have been left to Congress or state legislatures. The dissenters believed that the court's decision effectively rewrote legislation rather than interpreting it, which they saw as an infringement on legislative powers. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "reasonable" rates set by railroads under federal law, arguing instead for a more flexible understanding of what constitutes reasonable pricing based on market conditions and other factors. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on railroad companies' ability to operate profitably if forced to comply with rigid rate standards imposed by regulatory bodies like the Interstate Commerce Commission.