The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Railway Labor Executives Association et al., 1941, revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had jurisdiction to approve a railroad's proposal to reduce its workforce without first consulting with labor unions as required by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The ICC approved such reductions in an effort to maintain financial stability for struggling railroads during the Great Depression, but this was challenged by railway labor organizations who argued that it violated their rights under RLA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICC, stating that while RLA requires railroads and unions to negotiate on changes affecting working conditions, it does not limit other statutory powers granted to administrative bodies like ICC - including approving workforce reductions if necessary for a railroad’s survival.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Railway Labor Executives Assn. et al., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing administrative agencies' powers and functions, particularly in relation to their ability to interpret statutes they are charged with administering. He contended that Congress had not explicitly granted or impliedly intended for such power to be vested in these agencies, especially when it comes to making determinations about labor disputes which could have significant impacts on workers' rights and welfare. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on technicalities and legalistic interpretations rather than focusing on practical realities and potential consequences of their ruling.