The Interstate Commerce Commission v. Transcon Lines case in 1994 revolved around the issue of whether a bankruptcy court could discharge an interstate carrier's debt to the government for undercharges on past shipments, without approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC argued that it had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters and that its permission was required before any such debts could be discharged. However, Transcon Lines countered by stating that bankruptcy courts have broad powers to restructure debtor-creditor relationships and thus should be allowed to discharge these debts. The Supreme Court sided with the ICC, ruling that while bankruptcy courts do indeed possess significant authority in restructuring financial obligations during insolvency proceedings, this power does not extend into areas where regulatory agencies like the ICC hold exclusive jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Transcon Lines argued that the majority's decision to uphold the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) authority over intrastate trucking rates was an overreach of federal power. The dissenters believed that this interpretation violated principles of federalism by infringing on states' rights to regulate their own commerce, and exceeded Congress’s intent when it established ICC. They contended that there was no clear evidence from Congress indicating its intention for ICC to have such broad regulatory powers over intrastate activities, especially considering potential impacts on local economies and businesses. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about creating a precedent where federal agencies could assume greater control than what is explicitly granted by legislation.