The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., et al., 1957, revolved around the question of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to prescribe a through route and joint rate over connecting carriers for coal transportation from mines in West Virginia to Detroit, Michigan. The ICC argued that it was necessary for public convenience and necessity while railroads contended that this would result in revenue losses due to longer routes and lower rates than their existing direct routes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC stating that under Section 15(3) of the Interstate Commerce Act, they have broad powers including establishing through routes when deemed necessary or desirable in public interest even if it may cause some loss to carriers involved.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold an order by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a departure from established principles governing judicial review of administrative actions. He contended that it was not within ICC’s power to decide on matters related to rates without substantial evidence supporting its findings, and in this case, he believed such evidence did not exist. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to scrutinize whether there was indeed enough factual support for ICC's conclusion about long-and-short-haul clause violations. In his view, this lack of scrutiny undermined both statutory safeguards against arbitrary rate-making and constitutional due process protections.