In the 1892 case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had authority to set maximum rates for railroads. The ICC had ordered a reduction in transcontinental freight rates after finding that existing rates were unreasonable and discriminatory against certain cities. However, several railroad companies challenged this order arguing that it was beyond the ICC's power to establish specific rate levels. The Supreme Court sided with the railroads stating that while Congress could regulate interstate commerce including railway operations under its constitutional powers, it did not have explicit authority to fix prices or determine what constituted a reasonable charge for services rendered by private corporations engaged in interstate commerce such as railways. Therefore, although Congress created ICC with an intent to oversee fair practices within railroad industry and prevent abuses like price discrimination or monopolistic pricing strategies; without express legislative provision granting them such power they couldn't enforce their decisions regarding rate adjustments upon these entities.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority had overstepped its authority by interpreting the law in a way that was not intended by Congress. He believed that it was not within the purview of courts to determine rates or charges for transportation services; rather, this responsibility belonged solely to regulatory bodies like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). According to him, if there were any ambiguities in laws regarding rate regulation, they should be resolved through legislative action instead of judicial interpretation. Furthermore, he contended that railroads have a right under common law principles and constitutional protections against property seizure without due process or just compensation to charge reasonable rates for their services. Therefore, he disagreed with forcing them into potentially unprofitable contracts based on arbitrary ICC decisions about what constitutes 'reasonable' rates.