In the 1908 case of Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Edward H. Harriman, a prominent railroad magnate, challenged the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to investigate his financial and business practices related to railroads under his control. The ICC had initiated an investigation into whether Harriman was using his influence over several major railroads for personal gain at the expense of fair competition in interstate commerce. In response, Harriman filed suit against the ICC arguing that it exceeded its statutory powers by conducting such an investigation without specific complaints or evidence of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC stating that it did indeed have broad investigatory powers granted by Congress through legislation like Hepburn Act which aimed to regulate railway rates and prevent anti-competitive practices within interstate commerce industry. This decision affirmed regulatory power over large corporations during a time when monopolistic practices were common among industrialists like Harriman.

In the dissenting opinion for Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a subpoena issued by the ICC against E.H. Harriman. He argued that this case was not about whether Congress had authority over interstate commerce but rather if it could delegate its powers of inquiry and investigation to an administrative body like the ICC without violating constitutional principles of separation of powers and due process rights. Harlan believed that while Congress did have broad power over interstate commerce, it could not give away its legislative responsibilities or allow another entity to exercise them in a way that might infringe upon individual liberties protected under Fifth Amendment guarantees against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures.