In the 1917 case Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of Texas, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a state law that required railroads to provide equal facilities for both white and African American passengers was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The railway company argued that providing separate but equal accommodations would be economically burdensome and thus discriminatory. However, the court ruled against them stating that as long as accommodations were substantially equal in all respects such as convenience, comfort and safety among others, it did not constitute discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment even if they were separate. Therefore, requiring railways to provide equivalent services for different races does not infringe upon their rights or impose undue hardship on them.

In the dissenting opinion for Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of Texas, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation and application of the Commerce Clause. The dissent contended that states should retain their authority to regulate intrastate commerce without interference from federal authorities unless there is a clear conflict with national interests or policies. They believed this case did not present such a conflict and thus, Texas should have been allowed to enforce its own laws regarding railway rates within its borders. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce; arguing that mere inconvenience or additional expense does not necessarily constitute an undue burden under constitutional law.