The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company in 1933 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to regulate and fix rates for intrastate commerce when it significantly affected interstate commerce. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company challenged this, arguing that such regulation was an overreach of federal power into state jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICC, affirming its authority to regulate intrastate commercial activities if they were found to be detrimental or discriminatory towards interstate commerce under certain circumstances as per Shreveport Doctrine established earlier by Houston E & W Texas Railway Co v United States (1914). This decision reinforced federal regulatory powers over state-level economic activities when necessary for maintaining a balanced national economy.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). He argued that this was an overreach of federal power, as it allowed the ICC to dictate rates without considering whether they were fair or reasonable. Furthermore, he contended that such unchecked authority could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory practices. Justice McReynolds also expressed concern about potential harm to local businesses and consumers due to increased costs resulting from higher freight charges imposed by railroads under these new rates. In his view, while regulation is necessary in certain circumstances, it should not be used as a tool for unwarranted interference in private business operations or economic affairs.