The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company in 1891 revolved around the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to set railroad rates. The ICC had been established by Congress in 1887 with a mandate to regulate railroads, including their charges for transportation services, but its authority was challenged by several rail companies who argued that it violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. In this particular case, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company refused to comply with an order from the ICC reducing freight rates on certain commodities transported between Chicago and Philadelphia/New York City/Baltimore. In a unanimous decision led by Justice John Marshall Harlan I, the court ruled against ICC’s ability to determine specific maximum railway rates as it would infrally upon judicial powers reserved for courts alone according to Constitution Article III Section II Clause II - thus limiting regulatory reach of federal agencies like ICC over private businesses such as railways.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority was incorrect in its interpretation of the law. He believed that Congress had indeed granted regulatory power to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) over railroad companies' rates and practices. In his view, this authority extended to determining whether a rate was reasonable or not after it had been set by a company, contrary to what the majority held. Furthermore, he contended that if such powers were not given explicitly by Congress then they should be implied as necessary for carrying out ICC's mandate effectively. He also disagreed with how much deference was being shown towards businesses at public expense and warned against courts becoming too involved in administrative matters which could undermine agencies like ICC.