The Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Company case in 1916 involved the Indiana Transportation Company petitioning against an order from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The company was ordered to cease and desist from giving free transportation or reduced rates to shippers who also used their line for loading and unloading goods, which was seen as a violation of the Elkins Act. This act prohibited any rebates, concessions, or discriminations in respect of transportation of property by railroads engaged in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari sought by petitioner on grounds that it had no jurisdiction over orders made by administrative bodies like ICC unless there is a statute expressly providing for such review. Therefore, this case upheld that courts cannot interfere with decisions made by regulatory agencies unless explicitly provided for under law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Company argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The justice believed that it was not within the purview of federal courts to intervene in matters related to state taxation, as this would infringe upon states' rights and disrupt the balance between federal and state powers. They contended that such interference could lead to a dangerous precedent where federal courts could potentially meddle with any aspect of state governance under vague interpretations of constitutional law. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were handled by different judges due to lack of clear guidelines on when federal intervention is warranted. This ambiguity, according to them, further underscored why such issues should be left for states themselves to resolve.