In the case of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States in 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad rates. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered the railway company to reduce its rates for transporting phosphate rock within Florida, arguing that they were excessively high and violated federal law. However, the railway company challenged this order in court, claiming it was arbitrary and unjustified. The Supreme Court sided with ICC and upheld their decision to lower freight charges imposed by Florida East Coast Railway Company. It held that courts should not interfere with rate-setting decisions made by administrative agencies like ICC unless there is clear evidence of an error or abuse of power. This ruling affirmed ICC's authority over regulating interstate commerce including setting fair and reasonable rail transportation prices when necessary to protect public interest against unreasonable or discriminatory practices by transport companies.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not have the authority to set rates without a hearing and due process of law. The justices believed that this power should be reserved for Congress alone, as they are directly accountable to voters. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by administrative agencies such as ICC if they were given unchecked control over rate-setting decisions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "just and reasonable" rates in relation to market conditions and profitability considerations for railroads. In their view, these factors should be taken into account when determining what constitutes a fair rate rather than being disregarded entirely.