The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al., 1911 revolved around the issue of whether or not railroads could charge higher rates for shorter distances than longer ones under certain circumstances. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ruled that this practice was unjustly discriminatory and ordered it to cease, but several railroad companies challenged this ruling in court. The Supreme Court sided with the ICC, stating that while there may be situations where charging more for a shorter distance might be justified due to increased costs associated with serving less populated areas, such exceptions should not become general rules without clear justification based on actual cost differences. This decision reinforced the power of regulatory agencies like the ICC to oversee business practices affecting interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Interstate Commerce Commission and The United States v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al., argued that the court majority had overstepped its authority by interfering with the powers of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. They contended that it was not within their jurisdiction to determine whether or not a railroad company's rates were reasonable, as this power belonged solely to Congress through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted 'unreasonable' rates under federal law. In their view, any rate set by a railroad company could be deemed unreasonable if it resulted in undue prejudice against certain shippers or localities - even if such discrimination was unintentional. Therefore, they believed that ICC should have been allowed more discretion in setting and regulating these rates without judicial interference.