The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Inland Waterways Corp et al., 1942, revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had jurisdiction over water carriers engaged in transportation on inland waterways under the provisions of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act. The respondents, including Inland Waterways Corporation and several barge lines, argued that they were exempt from such regulation due to their status as "water carriers" rather than railroads or motor vehicles which are explicitly mentioned in Part II of the act. However, after examining legislative history and intent behind this part of the act, it was determined by a majority vote that Congress intended for all interstate transporters to be regulated by ICC regardless if they operate via land or water routes unless specifically excluded by law - an exclusion which did not apply to these respondents. Therefore, it was held that ICC indeed has authority over these entities operating on inland waters for purposes related to interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Inland Waterways Corp. et al., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Congress' intent in passing legislation related to waterway transportation and commerce regulation, arguing that it was not meant to exclude barge lines from being subject to ICC jurisdiction under Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act. He believed that such an exclusion would create a regulatory gap, as no other federal agency had been given authority over these entities at that time. Furthermore, he argued against interpreting congressional silence on this issue as intentional exclusion, stating instead that it should be seen as an oversight or ambiguity which could be resolved by looking at broader legislative context and purpose rather than narrow statutory language alone.