In the 1942 case of Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Columbus & Greenville Railway Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had ordered Columbus & Greenville Railway to maintain and operate a particular line, despite it being unprofitable for them. The railway company argued that this order was beyond ICC's authority as it violated their Fifth Amendment rights by forcing them into involuntary servitude without just compensation. However, the Supreme Court held that Congress has broad power over interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8 of Constitution which includes regulating railroads due to their integral role in interstate commerce system. Therefore, they can require railroad companies to continue operations even at a loss if deemed necessary for public convenience or necessity without violating Fifth Amendment protections against taking private property for public use without just compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Columbus & Greenville Railway Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing judicial review of administrative orders. He believed that it was not within the purview of courts to substitute their judgment for that of an administrative agency, particularly when it came to complex matters such as rate-making in which agencies had specialized expertise and experience. According to him, if there is any evidence supporting an agency's order, then courts should uphold it even if they might have reached a different conclusion independently. In this particular case, he felt there was ample evidence backing up ICC’s decision regarding railway rates and thus disagreed with his colleagues' choice to overturn them.