The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad Company in 1911 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to regulate and control railroad rates for interstate transportation, specifically those involving long-and-short hauls. The ICC argued that it was within its rights to prevent railroads from charging more for shorter distances than longer ones under certain circumstances, while Union Pacific contended that this overstepped regulatory boundaries. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC, affirming its power to regulate such practices as part of its mandate to ensure fair and reasonable railway rates across states lines. This decision reinforced federal regulation over interstate commerce and marked a significant expansion in government oversight on private businesses.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it pertains to a matter of administrative law rather than constitutional law. The dissenting justices believed that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had acted within its authority when it ordered Union Pacific Railroad Company to cease certain practices deemed unfair and discriminatory. They contended that Congress had granted ICC broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, including railroads, in order to protect public interest against monopolistic practices. Therefore, they disagreed with majority's decision which effectively limited ICC's regulatory power by ruling in favor of Union Pacific on grounds of due process rights under Fifth Amendment.