In the 1914 case Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over railroad freight rates. The plaintiff, Ellis, was a shipper who argued that certain rate increases approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) were unreasonable and discriminatory. He sought to have them set aside. However, he had not participated in the original proceedings before the ICC where these rates were established. The court ruled against him on two grounds: first, it held that only parties aggrieved by an order of ICC could seek judicial review; secondly, it found that since Ellis did not participate in or submit evidence during initial hearings at which rates were determined by ICC but instead waited until after they had been put into effect to challenge them legally - his claim was invalid as per due process requirements under administrative law principles.

The dissenting opinion in the Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission case argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this matter, as it was a dispute between private parties and did not involve any constitutional questions or federal laws. The dissenters believed that the majority's decision to intervene in this case represented an unwarranted expansion of judicial power, which could potentially undermine state sovereignty and disrupt the balance of powers within our federal system. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of interstate commerce regulations, arguing that these rules were intended to protect consumers from unfair business practices rather than to regulate competition among businesses. In their view, allowing such broad regulatory authority would stifle innovation and economic growth by discouraging healthy competition.