The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Railway Company in 1909 revolved around the issue of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to regulate railway companies' rates for interstate transport, even if part of that journey occurred within a single state. The Northern Pacific Railway Company argued that such regulation was beyond ICC's jurisdiction and infringed on states' rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICC, asserting its power to control rates for entire journeys that crossed state lines - regardless if parts were intrastate - under federal commerce law. This decision reinforced federal regulatory power over interstate commerce and clarified how far this authority extended into seemingly local matters when they formed part of an interstate transaction.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it pertains to a matter of administrative law rather than constitutional law. The dissenting justices believed that the decision made by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regarding railway rates should be upheld because they were within their rights and expertise to make such decisions. They contended that courts are not equipped with either technical knowledge or resources necessary to determine fair and reasonable railroad rates, which is why Congress created ICC in first place. Therefore, they felt that judicial interference in these matters undermines both congressional intent and administrative competence while potentially leading to inconsistent rulings on similar issues across different jurisdictions due its lack of specialized understanding about complex economic factors involved in rate-setting process.