In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al, 1961, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had ordered J-T Transport Co. and other similar companies to cease their operations because they were not complying with certain regulations regarding freight transportation across state lines. These companies challenged this order, arguing that it was beyond the regulatory authority of ICC as per provisions under Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act. However, upon review by a three-judge District Court panel which upheld most parts but set aside some portions of ICC's order on grounds that it exceeded its jurisdictional limits under Part II - Motor Carrier Act 1935; both parties appealed against this decision to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that while there are limitations on what kind of businesses fall within purview for regulation under Part II; these restrictions do not apply when such business is part and parcel or directly linked with interstate commerce activities like in present case where transport services provided by these firms were integral part for facilitating interstate trade/commerce activities hence fell within regulatory ambit/power vested with ICC.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., it was argued that the court majority had overstepped its bounds by interpreting a statute in a way not intended by Congress. The dissenters believed that the law, as written, did not give the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) authority to regulate carriers based on their rates alone without considering other factors such as public interest or necessity of service. They also disagreed with how broadly the ICC's jurisdiction was interpreted and felt this could lead to an unjustifiable expansion of federal power over private business operations. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on small businesses due to increased regulatory burdens imposed by such broad interpretation of ICC's powers.