In the 1923 case of Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees et al. v. United States, Interstate Commerce Commission, and American Wholesale Lumber Association, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had ruled that certain lumber rates were discriminatory and ordered their adjustment. The plaintiffs argued that this order exceeded the ICC's authority as it interfered with their right to contract freely for freight services under competitive conditions. However, they also claimed that there was no substantial evidence supporting discrimination or undue preference in favor of any party involved in these transactions. The Supreme Court upheld the ICC's ruling stating its findings were supported by substantial evidence and within its jurisdictional purview over interstate commerce matters. It further noted that while parties have freedom to contract for freight services competitively, such contracts must not result in unjust discrimination against other shippers or localities which is prohibited under federal law governing interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees et al. v. United States, Interstate Commerce Commission, and American Wholesale Lumber Association, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) authority over intrastate commerce was a dangerous expansion of federal power. He contended that this interpretation of the ICC's jurisdiction undermined states' rights and threatened individual liberties by giving too much regulatory control to a centralized government body. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on what constituted as “direct” effect on interstate commerce; in his perspective, not all activities within a state could be considered as having such an impact. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate for these activities to fall under federal regulation via ICC oversight.