In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company (1896), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The court held that while Congress had granted regulatory power to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) over railroads, this did not extend to compelling railroads to adopt specific rates or abandon their existing ones. The ICC had attempted to force a reduction in freight charges by arguing they were unreasonably high and discriminatory against certain locations. However, it was determined that such actions exceeded its authority as defined by Congress under the Act to Regulate Commerce 1887 - which only allowed for investigation into potential violations and recommendation for changes rather than direct enforcement powers.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision undermined the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. He believed that it was within Congress' authority to establish a body like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) with regulatory powers over railway rates. The majority had ruled that courts could review ICC decisions on rate fairness; however, Harlan contended this would lead to an impractical system where every aggrieved party could seek judicial review of administrative decisions. This would undermine effective regulation and create uncertainty in business operations due to potential legal challenges against set rates by dissatisfied parties. Furthermore, he stressed that judges were not equipped with necessary expertise or resources required for determining reasonable railroad rates compared to specialized bodies like ICC which are designed specifically for such tasks.