The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company in 1907 dealt with the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to set reasonable rates for railway companies. The ICC had ordered a reduction in rates charged by several railroads, including the Chicago Great Western Railway Company, arguing that their existing rates were unreasonable and discriminatory. The railroads challenged this order, asserting that it was beyond the ICC's authority and violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the ICC's rate-setting powers but also emphasized that these powers must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. It ruled that while Congress could delegate its regulatory power over interstate commerce to an administrative body like ICC, such delegation did not absolve courts from ensuring fairness and reasonableness in its exercise. Furthermore, it held that judicial review remained available to assess whether any action taken by such a body exceeded its statutory mandate or violated constitutional protections - thus providing some safeguard against potential abuses of delegated legislative power.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company argued that the court majority had overstepped its authority by interpreting legislative intent rather than strictly adhering to written law. The dissenters believed that Congress, not the courts, should be responsible for determining whether a particular action constituted discrimination under interstate commerce laws. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "reasonable and just" rates as being synonymous with "equal and uniform" rates, arguing this was an oversimplification which ignored potential complexities such as varying costs associated with different types of freight or distances traveled. Furthermore, they contended that it was inappropriate for courts to interfere in business decisions about pricing unless there was clear evidence of abuse or exploitation.