In the case of Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Company (1916), the petitioner, Indiana Transportation Company, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge A.B. Anderson to vacate an order he had issued in a previous case involving the company and one of its employees who was injured on duty. The employee had sued for damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The Supreme Court denied issuing such writ stating that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter as per section 262 of Judicial Code which states that only district courts can issue such orders. Furthermore, they stated that even if they did have jurisdiction, there were other remedies available for Indiana Transportation Company like appealing against Judge Anderson's decision in higher courts rather than seeking extraordinary relief through mandamus. Therefore, their petition was dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Company argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in a matter that should have been left to state courts. The justice believed that federal courts should only intervene when there is a clear violation of constitutional rights, which was not evident in this case. Furthermore, they contended that the majority's decision undermined states' rights and disrupted the balance between state and federal powers established by the Constitution. They also disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted certain legal principles related to maritime law and commerce clause jurisprudence, arguing for a more restrained approach.