The Intermountain Rate Cases of 1913 involved the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) against Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company and other railway companies. The case focused on whether the ICC had jurisdiction over intrastate rates that could potentially affect interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC, asserting its authority to regulate intrastate rates when they negatively impacted interstate trade. This decision was significant as it expanded federal power over state-regulated industries and affirmed the government's role in regulating economic activities for public interest.

In the dissenting opinion for the Intermountain Rate Cases, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by imposing a uniform rate structure across different geographical regions. The dissenting justices believed that this action disregarded important regional differences and market conditions which could potentially harm railroad companies' financial stability. They also pointed out that such an approach contradicted previous court rulings which acknowledged these factors in determining fair rates. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's interpretation of "long-and-short-haul" clause of Hepburn Act as overly broad and inconsistent with congressional intent. This clause prohibits railroads from charging more for shorter distances than longer ones on similar traffic under substantially similar circumstances but does not necessarily require equalization of all rates irrespective of distance or other relevant considerations according to them.