The Frozen Food Express v. United States case in 1955 revolved around the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) decision to exempt certain agricultural commodities from regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act. The ICC had determined that these products were not "transported in commerce" as defined by the act, and thus did not require its oversight. Frozen Food Express, a carrier of perishable foodstuffs, challenged this ruling arguing it was arbitrary and capricious because it created an unfair competitive advantage for carriers of exempt commodities. The Supreme Court upheld the ICC's decision stating that Congress gave them broad discretion to determine what constitutes transportation 'in commerce'. It further noted that while some may benefit more than others from exemptions, this does not make them unlawful or unreasonable. Therefore, there was no violation of due process rights or abuse of power on part of ICC.

In the dissenting opinion for Frozen Food Express v. United States, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) overstepped its authority by including certain commodities under "agricultural" products without proper justification or explanation. The dissenting justices believed that this arbitrary classification of goods violated due process rights of carriers who were not given an opportunity to argue against these classifications before they were implemented. They also pointed out inconsistencies in ICC's approach towards defining agricultural commodities and expressed concern about potential negative impacts on interstate commerce due to such broad regulations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretations unless clearly erroneous, arguing instead for a more rigorous judicial review of agency decisions.