In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company (1909), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered the railroad to cease charging more for shorter hauls than longer ones on similar goods under "similar conditions." The ICC argued that this practice was unjust and unreasonable, violating federal law. However, upon review by a lower court and then appealed to the Supreme Court, it was determined that while such practices might be unfair in some circumstances, they were not universally so. Therefore, each situation should be evaluated individually rather than applying a blanket rule as proposed by ICC. This ruling limited ICC's power over railroads' rate-setting policies and emphasized judicial oversight over administrative decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision undermined Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. He contended that by allowing states to set their own railway rates without federal oversight, they were effectively permitting a patchwork of state regulations which could disrupt and complicate interstate trade. Furthermore, he believed this ruling contradicted previous court decisions upholding federal supremacy in matters of interstate commerce regulation. In his view, it was not only within Congress’ power but also its duty to ensure fair and uniform standards across states for such an important aspect of national economy as rail transportation.