In the case of East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Frozen Food Express et al., 1955, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between two freight companies over operating rights granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had given Frozen Food Express permission to transport frozen foods across state lines, which was contested by East Texas Motor Freight Lines who argued that this infringed upon their own operating rights. However, the court upheld the ICC's decision and dismissed East Texas' claim stating that it lacked standing to challenge these permissions as they failed to demonstrate any substantial threat of direct injury resulting from them. This ruling set an important precedent in determining who has legal standing to contest decisions made by regulatory bodies like the ICC.

In the dissenting opinion for East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. v. Frozen Food Express et al., it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its bounds by granting a permit to Frozen Food Express without considering whether existing carriers could adequately handle the traffic. The dissent emphasized that Congress intended for new permits to be issued only when necessary to meet public needs not being fulfilled by current carriers, and believed this principle was violated in this case. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of "public convenience and necessity," arguing that it should include consideration of potential harm to existing carriers from competition introduced by new entrants into marketplaces already served sufficiently.