The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. et al., 1932, revolved around the legality of a rate increase by several railroad companies in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, which was challenged by both shippers and state regulatory bodies on grounds that it violated federal law governing interstate commerce rates for railroads. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had approved this rate hike after an investigation into its fairness and reasonableness but faced opposition from those who believed it to be discriminatory against certain regions or industries within them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICC and the railroads, upholding their authority to set such rates based on their expertise and judgment about what constituted fair pricing under prevailing economic conditions while also ensuring adequate revenue for railway operations without undue discrimination among customers or areas served by these transportation services providers.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an order by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that required railroads to provide free transportation for livestock attendants, arguing it was beyond ICC's authority under existing law and violated constitutional rights of carriers against taking property without just compensation. He argued that while Congress had given ICC power over rates, this did not extend to requiring services be provided without charge as it amounted to a form of confiscation from private entities which is unconstitutional unless accompanied by fair compensation or due process. The justice also pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of cargo were treated under this ruling, further highlighting its unfairness and arbitrariness.