In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney and Others, Receivers of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company (1909), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a railroad company could be compelled by law to construct physical connections with another railway line at a particular location, even if it would not be profitable for them to do so. The court ruled in favor of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). It held that under its authority from Congress, ICC can require railroads to establish physical connections where necessary or appropriate for public convenience or necessity - regardless of profitability considerations for individual companies. This decision reinforced ICC's regulatory power over interstate commerce and underscored that private business interests may sometimes need to yield in order to serve broader public needs.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney and Others, Receivers of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a railroad company to increase its rates without approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) undermined federal regulatory power. He believed that this ruling effectively stripped ICC of its authority granted by Congress under the Hepburn Act - which was designed to regulate railroads' freight rates in order to protect consumers from price gouging. In his view, allowing individual companies such autonomy over their pricing structures could lead to unfair practices and harm public interests. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition among different railway companies if they were allowed unchecked control over their own rate-setting processes.