The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland Railway Company in 1897 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to set maximum rates for railroads, and if so, whether such an action was constitutional. The Alabama Midland Railway Company challenged a decision by ICC to lower its freight rates, arguing that it violated their Fifth Amendment rights as it amounted to taking property without due process of law and denied them equal protection under the laws. However, the Supreme Court upheld ICC's power to regulate railroad rates on interstate commerce routes when they are unjustly discriminatory or excessively high. It ruled that setting reasonable maximum rate did not violate any constitutional rights of railway companies since railways were engaged in public service and thus subject to regulation for common good.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland Railway Company, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) should have authority to determine what constitutes a reasonable and just railway rate. The dissenting justices believed that Congress had intended for the ICC to have this power when they established it, as evidenced by their use of broad language in its creation statute. They contended that without such authority, the ICC would be unable to effectively regulate interstate commerce and prevent discriminatory practices among railroads. Furthermore, they asserted that courts should defer to administrative agencies like the ICC on matters within their expertise unless there is clear evidence of error or abuse of discretion.